[1] Criteria for determining whether a disciplinary action against a public official has abused discretion

[2] The case holding that a dismissal disposition against the chief of a police station, who received 80,000 won from the manager of a place of business within his/her jurisdiction through a subordinate police officer, is not a deviation or abuse of discretion

[1] Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against a person subject to disciplinary action, who is a public official, is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretion significantly lacks validity under the social norms, it can be deemed unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for a disciplinary decision, etc., depending on the specific cases, it should be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure are objectively unreasonable.

[2] The case holding that a dismissal disposition against the chief of a police box, who received 80,000 won from the manager of a place of business within his/her jurisdiction through a subordinate police officer, is not a deviation or abuse of discretion

[1] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [General Administrative Litigation Decision], Articles 56, 61 (1), 63, and 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act / [2] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / Articles 56, 61 (1), 63, and 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8755 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 135), Supreme Court Decision 98Du12017 delivered on November 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 280) Supreme Court Decision 98Du1475 delivered on December 8, 199 (Gong199Sang, 142)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun Law Office, Attorneys Kang Jon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Gyeonggi-do Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu53825 delivered on October 14, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's act of taking advantage of the evidence as stated in the judgment below was conducted on September 15, 1969 and promoted to a slope on September 1, 1986. From March 8, 1995 to March 2, 197, and served as the head of Suwon-nam Police Station during the investigation of the same police station from March 3, 1997. On the other hand, the plaintiff's act of receiving money from the head of Suwon-Nam Police Station around 19:00 and received money from the head of the above police station from the head of the above police station from the head of the above 0th police station to the head of the above 0th 2nd 7th 2nd 0th 7th 197, and the plaintiff's act of receiving money from the head of the above police station from the head of the above 0th 2nd 7th 2nd 2nd 3rd 19.

However, the issue of which disciplinary action is to be taken is that the person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. However, if the disciplinary action as the exercise of discretionary authority is deemed to have seriously lost validity, the disciplinary action against the public official is unlawful. The disciplinary action against the public official shall be determined by taking into account various factors such as the content and nature of the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for disciplinary action, etc., and the disciplinary action is clearly unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1475, Dec. 8, 1998; 98Du12017, Nov. 10, 1998; 97Nu855, Nov. 28, 1997; 2000, the court below acknowledged that it is difficult for the police officer to take into account the above disciplinary action against the person subject to disciplinary action within its jurisdiction, and thus, it is also difficult for the court below to take into account the disciplinary action against the person subject to disciplinary action within its jurisdiction.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)