To the extent that the disciplinary action of the police officer in salary 2 months was appropriate for the reason that he/she resisted against the people even though he/she was at the time of the fighting.

In a case where a police officer observed and prevented the Nonindicted Party from satising on the road, and one of them satising and satising a satisf, and inflicted a bodily injury requiring approximately eight weeks of treatment by walking the left part, the above so-called "Disciplinary Action" constitutes a disciplinary cause under Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act and constitutes a disciplinary cause under Article 78 (1) 1 and 78 (2) 3 of the State Public Officials Act, and is appropriate for two months of his salary reduction.

Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu110 delivered on November 6, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was injured by the plaintiff's 1's left part of the 1st century as the plaintiff 1 left part of the 1stm of the 1stm of the 1stm of the 1stm of the 1984 Jin-gun, Sucheon-ri, Chocheon-ri, Chocheon-gun, the time of his service, and the non-party 1 took witness and removed him from the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1984.8.12th of the 1984. 2nd of the 2nd of the 1984. 2nd of the 2nd of the 1984. 2nd of the 2nd of the 1984. 3nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1984. 3rd of the 196th of the 2nd of the judgment below.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)