(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.9.5. 선고 2019구합56722 판결

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a customs secretary on March 1, 1992, and was promoted to the Korea Customs Service on or around December 201, 201. From February 2012, the Plaintiff served in the Korea Customs Service B Customs Investigation Division, and as a special judicial police officer, was in charge of investigation of violation of the Customs Act, control of illegal import and smuggling, consignment storage of seized goods, public auction, etc.

B. On July 16, 2018, the Defendant violated Article 61(1) of the State Public Officials Act as stated in the following summary of the grounds for disciplinary action. On the ground that, following the resolution of the General Disciplinary Committee of the Korea Customs Service, the Defendant issued a disposition to remove the Plaintiff from office and impose surcharges for disciplinary action (three times the amount received) pursuant to Article 78(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act.

In the case of receiving entertainment (hereinafter referred to as "C") from the person related to the duties of the head of the office in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Si/Gun/Gu") may import pelpelpellets and supply it to the domestic chemical power plant.The plaintiff was receiving entertainment equivalent to KRW 205,070 at the market price, such as alcoholic beverages, from C's vice president D, around March 1, 2015, and around March 1, 201, after the plaintiff received entertainment (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for disciplinary action") from C on February 8, 2016, after the plaintiff completed internal investigation on the above suspicion, he received a gift gift tax amounting to KRW 256,00 at the market price at the Plaintiff's residential area. The plaintiff received entertainment from D and received unjust and unjust disposal (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for disciplinary action") as above, and then disposed of the pelpel in violation of the Customs Act.

C. On November 13, 2018, the Ministry of Personnel Management filed an appeal review against the removal of the Plaintiff. In light of the following: (a) the Minister of Personnel Management recognized both grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 and No. 2 as of November 13, 2018; (b) recognized that the Plaintiff performed his/her duties in return for the receipt of entertainment, etc.; (c) the court rendered a sentence that constitutes a ipso facto retirement against the Plaintiff; (d) other than the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 and No. 2, there are significant illegality for the Plaintiff; and and (e) the Plaintiff’s status requires strict liability, the Minister of Personnel Management determined that the removal disposition against the Plaintiff did not go beyond the discretionary power and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for an appeal review (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Non-existence of Disciplinary Reason 2

The Plaintiff received entertainment equivalent to KRW 205,070 of meal expenses from D on November 3, 2015, around February 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant entertainment”). However, the Plaintiff did not prepare a false investigation report in favor of C with the acceptance of the instant entertainment, or unfairly conclude an investigation into C with the contents favorable to C. The Plaintiff prepared an investigation report after delivery of the existing written investigation report from E, and prepared an investigation report by editing the contents of the investigation report, which was already written by E, and the Plaintiff used it as it was only suspected and used. In addition, considering the results of the investigation, the Plaintiff was not guilty of the facts related to the final judgment of grounds for disciplinary action, on the ground that “C was not guilty of the intention to import wood pellets,” and the Plaintiff was not guilty of the facts related to the final judgment of grounds for disciplinary action.”

2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

The former Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1317, Aug. 31, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), the former Directive on Punishment for Customs Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1791, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the revised Directive on Punishment for Customs Officials on December 29, 2015, the first ground for disciplinary action constitutes a wrongful act of “type of receiving pecuniary benefits, such as money and valuables or entertainments, regardless of whether it is illegal or unjust disposition.” Furthermore, the instant entertainment is less than KRW 1 million, and the Plaintiff received the instant entertainment on a multiple basis. Furthermore, the grounds for disciplinary action are not subject to removal even in accordance with all the above disciplinary criteria. Moreover, the instant entertainment has the aspect of collecting timber from the importing company of wood pelpel pelpel pel pel pel pel pel pel pel pel pel , which is unlawful since its abuse of discretion by the Plaintiff’s.

(b) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

1) As the actual operator of H (hereinafter “H”) from May 1, 2014, G is a person who had been engaged in warehouse business from around May 1, 2014. The Plaintiff: (a) controlled pelpelpellets imported from April 30, 2014 to May 16, 2014; (b) specified G as a suspect; and (c) filed a complaint with the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor’s Office against the suspicion of violating the Customs Act on April 2, 2015.

2) On August 2015, 2015, the Plaintiff received intangible benefits for free use by delivering the NAS car (I), which was leased under H’s name, from the first patrolman G.

3) On September 22, 2015, B: (a) through J on July 22, 2015, the B Customs entered into the Pyeongtaek Port, which entered into, on July 22, 2015, intended to import pelpellets manufactured by mixing pelpelpellets with the import-prohibited plants, as pure wood pelpelpelpellets. The Plaintiff also participated in the investigation team (hereinafter referred to as the “investigation Team”). The investigation team investigated the investigation team as an investigator in charge of the Plaintiff as to whether there was a suspicion of violating the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the “subject case”). On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff collected samples from the wood pelpelpelpelpel,045 tons (hereinafter referred to as the “pelpelpel”) at issue in the instant case as Pyeongtaek pelpelpelpelpelpel (hereinafter referred to as the “instant samples”).

4) From April 2015, D was the vice president of C, who imported pelpelpelpel and supplied it to domestic chemical power plants. D, around October 2015, around 21, D received a proposal from K companies, that “C has a wooden pelpelpellets arriv arrive at Pyeong Port from K companies,” and that it is appropriate from L institutions and M institutions affiliated with the relevant department. The result of the examination is that: (a) the ownership of the wooden pelpelpellets is transferred and is scheduled to pass customs clearance; (b) the delivery date is suitable for the supply of secondary power plants; (c) the submission of a statement to the effect that the delivery date is for prompt verification and the delivery date is required; and (d) the investigation team identified the company suspected of illegal import of the subject case as C at that time.

5) On the other hand, on October 15, 2015, the Korea Environment Corporation responded that the sample of this case meets the quality standards for high-class fuel products, and the Korea Forestry Promotion Institute responded that the sample of this case meets the quality standards for wood products on November 5, 2015. However, the Korea Customs Analysis Institute cannot confirm the accurate components and proportion of wood products on December 29, 2015, but it is judged that the sample of this case is a wood pelpellets manufactured as a wood origin. In reference, the sample presented for the purpose of this case is "non-conforming goods" among the quality standards for solid fuels. The investigation team prepared an investigation report on the result of the above reply as of December 29, 2015, and prepared an investigation report on the content of the above reply to the Central Customs Analysis Center, and prepared the article's content "in the case where the purpose of use of solid fuels is to meet the quality standards for solid fuels" differently from the substance of the latter.

6) Upon accepting the above report on February 3, 2016, the investigative team cannot distinguish the laws and regulations that stipulate the conditions necessary for import from the instant wood pellets in compliance with both the standards of “high fuel” and “timber products.” It is difficult to conclude that C confirmed from the original shipper, through the analysis body, that it was consistent with the standards of the instant timber products, and that it had an intention to directly import the instant timber pelpellets that it was brought into Pyeongtaek Port on October 2, 2015. It is difficult to deem that there was intention or suspected intention to directly import the said timber pelpelpellets as the purchase of the instant timber pelpellets that was brought into Pyeongtaek Port on October 2, 2015. It is difficult to conclude that there was intention or suspected intention to illegally import the said timber pelpel. The investigation report was prepared to the effect that the instant timber pelpellets is closed, and the relevant case was closed (hereinafter “the

7) With respect to the facts described in paragraphs (i) through (vi) of the aforesaid paragraphs on October 31, 2016, the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office charged the Plaintiff, G, N, and E, and charged an additional indictment on February 7, 2017. Of the final charges that have been consolidated, the summary of the facts charged against the Plaintiff is as follows.

1. On the 20th anniversary of the facts charged against the plaintiff 1.O. 2, the plaintiff was not able to handle the seized articles at B. 1. The plaintiff was 200 won for each of the instant pellets 8,436 tons operated by H. 2. On July 2014, the plaintiff was 200 won for the following reasons: 1. The plaintiff was 1.0 won for the first 5th pelpel 20, 2000 won for the first pel 1. The plaintiff was 200 won for the first pel 20,000 won for the second pel 1. The plaintiff was 20,000 won for the second pel 20,000 won for the second pel 20,000 won for the second pel pel 20,000 won for the second pel pel 10,000 won for the second pel pel 20,000 won for the second pel pel 3.

8) On November 23, 2017, Gwangju District Court found the Plaintiff guilty of ① obtaining benefits from the use of the NAS car from G on August 23, 2015, ② receiving a bribe by receiving entertainment equivalent to KRW 205,070 at the market price on or around November 3, 2015, ③ receiving a bribe by receiving one gift gift worth of KRW 256,000 at the market price from D on February 8, 2016, ③ receiving a bribe by receiving one gift gift worth of KRW 256,00 at the market price from KRW 256,000 [Attachment] 2. 3. 3. Da. 2, 2015, 200, 200, 200, 200, 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,000,00).

9) On June 21, 2018, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017No5555) declared that all appeals were dismissed on June 21, 2018. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appellate brief was not filed (hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”) became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of appeal (hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”).

10) 한편 D는 관련 형사사건에 증인으로 출석하여 '제가 원고에게 서울 한번 올라오 시면 시간 될 때 저녁식사 한번 (대접)하겠다고 말씀을 드렸고, 저희가 원래 명절이 되면 원래 20~30명에게 선물을 하는데, 보통 15만 원 상당의 굴비를 하지만 원고가 B에 있어서 굴비를 보내기에는 모양새가 이상해서 원고의 것만 소고기로 바꿨다.'고 진술하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8.9 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination as to the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2

1) In an administrative litigation disputing the propriety of a disciplinary action, the burden of proof as to the grounds for disciplinary action lies on the Defendant asserting the legality of the relevant disposition. In an administrative litigation, the burden of proof of facts is not a natural scientific proof that there should be no suspicion. However, barring any special circumstance, it is highly probable to prove that there was any fact by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, and the judgment requires to be an extent that ordinary person would not be doubtful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da13146, Jan. 29, 2015). Meanwhile, even if not subject to detention of facts found in an administrative litigation in an administrative litigation, a criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis becomes significant evidence in an administrative trial, and it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal judgment, barring any special circumstance, and the facts opposed thereto cannot be acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du1024, Nov. 26, 1999).

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed therefrom, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone does not prove high probability that the Plaintiff’s act of closing the internal investigation with respect to the suspected violation of the Customs Duties Act due to the illegal import of wood pellets in the instant case does not constitute an illegal and unfair disposition due to the instant entertainment. The grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 cannot be acknowledged as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

① The term “illegal act” in the relevant criminal case includes not only a job-related act but also an act objectively related thereto as it refers to any act in violation of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 2003). The relevant criminal case is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff prepared the instant report or handled the closure of internal investigation with respect to C on the grounds as follows, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt the factual judgment of the finalized related criminal case.

○ The reason for the judgment on the criminal case ① cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff intentionally prepared a false internal investigation report (the instant report). ② The Waste-to-Energy Center and the Korea Forestry Promotion Institute replyed that the standards for the quality of solid fuels or timber products are fully met; ③ the Central Customs Analysis Institute mainly determined the tariff classification for the collection of customs duties and customs clearance; ④ the analysis of the Customs-to-Energy Center cannot be said to be superior to the result of the analysis of the Waste-to-Energy Center; ④ the entire contents of the instant report, the fact that C had no intention to receive 8,045 tons of the instant timber pelpelpel 8,045 tons, and related explanatory materials submitted to B customs; and the results of the reexamination by each of the analysis agencies, it is difficult to readily conclude that C, despite the contents of the reply to the Central Customs-to-Energy Center and the Korea Forestry Promotion Institute, was finally subject to a disposition of non-taxation by the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office. ⑤ Notwithstanding the fact that C was finally subject to a disposition of non-taxation by the Gwangju District Prosecutors Office.

② Article 270(2) of the Customs Act provides that a person, among those who filed an import declaration under the Customs Act, who did not meet the requirements for import pursuant to the statutes, or who imported wood pelpellets in an unlawful manner, shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than three years, or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won. In the subject case, the question was particularly whether C unlawfully imported the wood pelpellets in order to avoid the quality inspection required for solid fuels. However, the related agency responded to the suitability of the instant wood pelpellets on different premise as to where the instant timber pelpellets is classified into “ solid fuels” and “timber products,” and the Central Customs Analysis Agency does not conclude the instant timber pelpel as “ solid fuels” in its purport. In addition, C asserted that the Plaintiff received a written examination to the effect that the instant timber pelpelpel is suitable for a timber product from the original purchaser, and the Plaintiff appears to have received relevant materials. In view of the circumstances leading up to the purchase of the instant wood pelpel, it is difficult for the investigative team to determine that the instant case directly rejected the instant wood pelpel.

(3) In light of the fact that the result of the analysis of the relevant agency's "relevant agency" is an important issue to determine whether the crime of illegal import was established, the Plaintiff prepared the response of the Central Customs Analysis Agency differently from the fact, and the time when the entertainment of this case took place, etc., the Plaintiff's handling of the instant case constitutes an illegal and unjust disposition regardless of criminal liability. However, the main issue in the instant case and the main summary of the instant report were related to "C's intentional import." From among the agencies examining the sample of this case, the Waste-to-Energy Center and the Korea Forestry Promotion Institute sent answers to the purport different from the Central Customs Analysis Agency, and the report that the result of the Central Customs Analysis Agency's response was made against the duty of integrity, E, a subordinate employee, prepared its draft. In addition, the instant disciplinary standard is set as a requirement of increase in disciplinary action, and thus, it is highly probable that the Plaintiff's handling of the instant entertainment at the same time and amount thereof is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff's handling of the Plaintiff's work.

E. Determination on disciplinary action

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is placed 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 authority has considerably lost validity under social norms, the measure is unlawful. The disciplinary measure against a public official is deemed unlawful in light of the substance and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, the administrative purpose that the person intends to achieve through a disciplinary measure, the criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, and in particular, whether the disciplinary measure has influenced duties after receiving, receiving, giving, receiving, or receiving, in a case of entertainment, the contents of the disciplinary measure are clearly and clearly unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du6387, Jun. 26, 2008). Meanwhile, even if the exercise of authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, the disciplinary measure against a public official violates the principle of equality and equality (see, 2016.

2) Specific determination

In light of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances revealed from the above facts, the choice of the Plaintiff’s heavy removal of the kind of disciplinary action from the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Defendant went beyond the disciplinary standard prescribed by the internal criteria of disciplinary action and deviates from and abused the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it goes beyond the discretionary power.

① Since the Plaintiff is a person who performs the duties of judicial police officers pursuant to Article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 5 subparag. 17 of the Act on Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officers and the Duties of Judicial Police Officers, and Article 295 of the Customs Act, the Plaintiff requires high level of integrity and fairness due to the nature of the duties in charge. However, the Plaintiff’s ground of disciplinary action is highly likely to criticize the Plaintiff when investigating whether the Plaintiff violated the Customs Act, and the Plaintiff was provided entertainment from the person who was accused of the violation of the Customs Act, and the Plaintiff was provided with free benefits to use the automobile from the person who was accused of the violation of the Customs Act. If the Plaintiff did not impose strict disciplinary action, it is difficult to expect fair and strict control in the investigation into customs offenses, as well as in regulating the Plaintiff, and thus, it can be said that the Plaintiff’s act of taking the premise that “the Plaintiff’s act of violating the law’s fairness and integrity of the law as well as the customs officers working together with the duty of judicial police officers should be sufficiently recognized as an unlawful act of the Plaintiff’s.

② The facts that the ground for disciplinary action of the Plaintiff 1 occurred multiplely may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in D’s statements recognized earlier or without dispute between the parties. Therefore, according to Article 2(1) and attached Table 1-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree applicable to the ground for disciplinary action of No. 1 which is deemed a single comprehensive crime, the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct constitutes “where he received property benefits, such as money and entertainment, in relation to his duties, but did not take illegal or unreasonable measures,” and thus, the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct is subject to dismissal or suspension

In light of the contents and degree of the entertainment of this case, the Plaintiff has contributed to the customs administration faithfully and appropriately for about 26 years since being appointed in 192, and considering the public interest and the necessity of strict disciplinary action achieved by the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s deprivation of his status as a public official and partial restriction on the Plaintiff’s right to claim retirement benefits, etc., through “sponch” would put the Plaintiff at a disadvantage of excessive social position. In addition, according to the written decision on the appeal review (No. 6), the Defendant was dismissed if a public official belonging to the previous Korea Customs Service received money and entertainment less than one million won from a person related to his duties, but did not take any unlawful or unjust disposition, and the appeals review committee maintained it.

F. Sub-committee

The instant disposition is not recognized as part of the grounds for disciplinary action, which is based on the disposition, and is illegal as it constitutes a case where the pertinent disciplinary authority was abused or abused based on the grounds for disciplinary action recognized.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges Kim Jong-il

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Kim Jae-jin

Attached Form

Relevant statutes

/ The State Public Officials Act

Article 61 (Duty of Integrity)

(1) Any public official may give or receive directly or indirectly any reward, donation or entertainment in connection with his/her duties.

shall not be effective.

Article 78 (Grounds for Discipline)

(1) If a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall request a resolution on disciplinary action and pass the disciplinary action

Any disciplinary action shall be taken according to the result of the action.

1. Where he/she violates this Act or any order issued under this Act;

2. Violation of official duties (including duties imposed in connection with the status of public officials by other Acts and subordinate statutes);

or neglect to perform the duties;

3. Where he commits an act detrimental to his prestige or dignity, regardless of a connection with his duties.

(2) Public officials to whom other Acts apply with respect to discipline, shall be governed by this Act concerning discipline.

Where a public official is appointed, the grounds for disciplinary action under other Acts before appointment shall arise;

The grounds for disciplinary action under this Act shall be deemed to have occurred from the date thereof.

Article 78-2 (Disciplinary Additional Charges)

(1) Where a resolution on disciplinary action against a public official is requested pursuant to Article 78, the grounds for disciplinary action shall be as follows:

money acquired or provided as follows in addition to the applicable disciplinary action; or

530,000,000

A resolution on the imposition of surcharges for disciplinary action on the ship shall be requested to the Disciplinary Committee.

1. Receiving or selling money, goods, real estate, entertainment, or other property benefits prescribed by Presidential Decree;

case of provision

Article 83-2 (Prescription of Grounds for Disciplinary Action and Imposition of Disciplinary Additional Charges)

(1) A request for disciplinary action, etc. shall be made for three years from the date on which grounds such as disciplinary action, etc. arise.

No one shall be allowed if the five years elapse in any case).

(1) Enforcement Rule of the former Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1317, Aug. 31, 2016)

Article 2 (Criteria for Disciplinary Action or Disciplinary Additional Charges)

(1) The Disciplinary Committee shall take disciplinary action or disciplinary additional charges pursuant to Article 78-2 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter referred to as "additional charges

The type of the misconduct of the suspect, the degree of the misconduct, the severity of the misconduct, and the degree of the negligence, the performance, service performance, and

The active performance of relevant duties, such as public, regulatory reform, and national tasks, the degree of penance, or other circumstances;

Criteria for disciplinary action in attached Table 1, criteria for disciplinary action of violation of the duty of integrity in attached Table 1-2, and criteria for disciplinary action of violation of the duty of integrity in attached Table 1-3

Disciplinary action or disciplinary additional charges pursuant to the criteria for disciplinary action against drunk driving and the criteria for imposing disciplinary additional charges in attached Table 1-4;

(hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Action, etc.") shall pass a resolution on the case.

(2) When the Disciplinary Committee makes a resolution on disciplinary action, etc., it shall perform public duties by causing irregularities and irregularities.

The history of maintaining the integrity, realizing and establishing a clean public service society, and subject to resolution, and duties and duties subject to such resolution.

If the case is involved in the wrongful payment of money or valuables, not only the misconduct but also the supervisor related to the misconduct; and

It shall be strictly responsible for the proposal and intermediary for the misconduct.

[Attachment 1-2]

Criteria for disciplinary action against violation of the duty of integrity (related to Article 2 (1))

A person shall be appointed.

1. The term "money, valuables, entertainment, and other property benefits" means money, goods, real estate, entertainment, and other property benefits prescribed in Article 78-2 (1) 1 of the State Public Officials Act (referring to the amount converted into money in cases of property benefits other than money) prescribed in Article 17-2 (1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials; 2. The term "person related to duties" and "public officials related to duties" mean persons related to duties defined in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and public officials related to duties defined in subparagraph 2 of the same Article;

Article 4 (Reduction of Disciplinary Action)

(1) The Disciplinary Committee shall have contributed to a person for whom a resolution on disciplinary action is requested falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

In cases of disciplinary action, the disciplinary action may be mitigated according to the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action in attached Table 3: Provided, That the relevant public official shall be mitigated.

If a disciplinary action or a warning under these Rules has been issued, the disciplinary action or warning shall be issued.

The previous meritorious service shall be excluded from the meritorious service subject to mitigation, and disciplinary action under Article 83-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act.

Cheating for which the statute of limitations is five years, sexual crimes under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

Article 2 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 2 of the National Human Rights Commission Act

Disciplinary action against sexual harassment under subparagraph 3 (d) and driving under the influence of alcohol under Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Property, etc. against a person liable for registration pursuant to Article 8-2 (1) 4 or 22 of the Public Service Ethics Act;

(1) If a resolution on a disciplinary action is required due to a violation of obligations related to the sale or trust of shares, such resolution may be mitigated.

shall not be effective.

1. A meritorious service awarded an order or a medal under the Awards and Decorations Act;

2. An official commendation (limited to an official commendation and an original idea prize; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the Prime Minister or higher pursuant to the Regulations on Government Commendation;

Public officials of Grade VI or lower, researchers, instructors, and functions at the time of committing misconduct.

A public official shall receive at least a commendation from the head of a central administrative agency (including the head of an agency equivalent to the loan grade).

Public Service

3. A meritorious service selected as an exemplary public official pursuant to the Regulations for Exemplary Officials;

(2) The Disciplinary Committee shall impose disciplinary actions on a person for whom a disciplinary resolution is requested in a sincere and active manner.

Objects of reduction or exemption under the proviso to the part other than the subparagraphs of paragraph (1), which are deemed to have been caused by an office;

If it is deemed that the misconduct is caused by an accident not related to his/her duties, the circumstances shall be considered.

The disciplinary action may be mitigated according to the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action in attached Table 3.

director Directives on the punishment of customs officials [Article 1791, December 29, 2015, partial amendments]

Article 1 (Purpose)

This Directive shall be various public officials, such as breach of duty under the State Public Officials Act by the Korea Customs Service and public officials belonging thereto.

The standards, etc. for disposal of violations of the official discipline shall be prepared, thereby establishing the official discipline, and excellent exemplary public service;

Fair business administration and clean and advanced customs administration by actively discovering and rewarding sources;

purpose is to promote.

Article 2 (Relation with Other Provisions)

(1) Matters not prescribed in this Directive shall be governed by the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree, the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree, and public officials.

The Regulations on the Handling of the above-mentioned Cases (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance on Disciplinary Measures against Public Officials, etc.") shall apply, and especially prescribed by other regulations

shall be governed by the provisions of such regulations, if any.

(2) Where the criteria for disposition prescribed by this Directive are lower than the criteria for disposition prescribed by the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Officials, etc.

The Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials shall take precedence over the application.

Article 12 (Reduction of Dispositions)

(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to any of the following misconducts (hereinafter referred to as "unlawfuls in intensive management"):

subsection (b) of this section.

1. Cheating (the number of money, valuables, or entertainment) for which the prescription period of disciplinary reasons under Article 83-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act is five years;

number, embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds

A Addenda No. 1791, 2015.

Article 1 (Effective Date) This Directive shall enter into force on December 29, 2015.

Article 2 (Transitional Measures following Change in Criteria for Disciplinary Action, etc.) Notwithstanding the amended provisions of attached Tables 3 and 9, these Directives

The previous provisions shall apply to public officials who have occurred before the grounds for disciplinary action are implemented.

[Attachment 3] Criteria for Disciplinary Action against Violation of Duty of Integrity

A person shall be appointed.

Finally.

참조조문

-공무원 징계령

-공무원 징계령 제17조의2 제1항

-공무원 징계령 시행규칙

-공무원 징계령 시행규칙 제2조 제1항

-공무원 행동강령 제2조 제1호

-공직자윤리법 제8조의2 제1항 제4호

-공직자윤리법 제22조