1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After being appointed as a patrol officer on July 1, 1985, the Plaintiff promoted to the police officer on September 1, 2008. From October 19, 2012, the investigation of the Chungcheong Police Agency and the B Team, from February 21, 2014 to the same police station investigation and the C Team, and served in the same police station life safety transportation and D police box from June 30, 2015.

A police officer shall observe all relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, faithfully perform his/her duties, and comply with an official order of his/her superior; however, he/she has been working as the head of the police team at B around A, and provided meals (four times) to E, who is an operator of an entertainment establishment he/she became aware of as the head of the N, on November 1, 2015, and visited the person in charge of the instant case (four times). On April 23, 2016, police officers maintained friendship, as well as maintained friendship, such as sending call 25 times from November 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016 and sending text messages 106 times (61, 45 times, and 61 times) and violated an order of prohibition of contact to the target establishment, and on April 23, 2016, when he/she was arrested as a special obstruction of performance of official duties, he/she exercised undue influence, such as asking the person in charge of the instant case, etc.

B. On October 24, 2016, the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and Article 57 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act as the grounds for the following (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is an unlawful disposition that misleads the Plaintiff into fact, on the grounds that there is no grounds for disciplinary action following the absence of the grounds for disciplinary action. A) As to the violation of the system prohibiting contact with the subject business establishment (hereinafter “the instant system prohibiting contact”), E is an entertainment tavern.