The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a police officer who was first appointed as a policeman on June 10, 1992 and served in the B police station from July 17, 2013 after promotion to the Inspector on July 1, 2012.

At around 15:00 on August 6, 2017, the Plaintiff consulted with C (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) who found a police station due to violence, intimidation, etc. of male-child group (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) while on duty at the criminal police station and the office of B police station (hereinafter referred to as “victim”), and D, working for the same police station, provided counseling with the victim while serving on duty at the criminal police station and the office of B police station around 15:00 on August 8, 2017.

On August 9, 2017, the victim suffered from the assault, etc. from the perpetrator who drive away by tracking the location of the victim.

On February 26, 2018, the chief of the B police station rendered disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and D on the ground that “The Plaintiff and D did not seriously recognize the situation of the victim, and did not take measures such as making an application for personal protection, or receiving a written complaint without ex officio application, etc., and did not comply with Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 59 (Duty of Kindness) of the State Public Officials Act.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and D filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court seeking revocation of each of the above reprimand dispositions, and the Seoul Administrative Court (2018Guhap77944), on June 14, 2019, issued a judgment dismissing D’s claim on the grounds that the above reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful on the ground that the public matters falling under the grounds for mitigation that should be presented during the deliberation process of the Disciplinary Committee were not presented properly, and that the above reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful.

B The chief of the police station supplemented the plaintiff's public service and again requested a disciplinary resolution to the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers in B police station (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Committee"), and on July 29, 2019, the Disciplinary Committee passed a reprimand against the plaintiff for the following reasons.

2.3.