1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 1982, the Plaintiff was appointed as the superintendent of the police station and promoted to the reduction on July 1, 2013, and served as B and C from July 15, 2013.

(Evidence No. 13) The Plaintiff purchased and leased the two-story building D located in Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun on December 17, 2002, - around April 2009, the Plaintiff did not take measures, such as termination of the contract, even if the lessee E (n.e., female, 52) was controlled by the police due to suspicion that the lessee performed the similarity act and was notified around June 2009. On April 27, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to lease his/her building with the knowledge of the fact that the lessee had sexual traffic, such as reregulation, under suspicion that E performed the similarity act.

(hereinafter referred to as “first-oriented act”) . - The entertainment room operator who rents his/her building was unable to properly manage the illegal business even though he/she did not properly control the illegal business, such as the prohibition on two occasions on suspicions of opening or altering the game machine.

(hereinafter referred to as "the second act") b.

On May 12, 2014, following the resolution of the ordinary disciplinary committee of police officers of the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency, the defendant committed a disciplinary action against the plaintiff by applying Article 78 (1) 1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the plaintiff committed a violation of Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 57 (Duty of Fidelity), and Article 63 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that he/she committed a violation of the act of harming the dignity of a building at an illegal business establishment (hereinafter referred to as "the instant misconduct").

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request and filed a petition review on July 10, 2014, and the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration rendered a decision on August 19, 2014 that “the removal from office as of May 12, 2014 shall be changed to the removal from office.”

"Disciplinary action taken on May 12, 2014, which was mitigated due to dismissal," is "the action of this case".

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 14 (each entry including numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s misconduct in this case is alleged.