beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 28, 1981, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman, and was promoted to reduction on October 1, 2010. From January 28, 2015 to November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff served as C of the Human Resources Police Station from November 11, 2015 to January 24, 2016.
B. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed a violation of Article 7, 21, 22, or 36 of the Regulations on the Inducement and Escort of Suspects; (b) Article 56 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 13288, May 18, 2015; hereinafter “former State Public Officials Act”); and (c) Article 2(a) of the former Act constitutes a violation of Article 78, 22, or 36 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 1328, May 18, 2015; hereinafter “former State Public Officials Act”); and (d) Article 14 of the former Act on the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency (amended by Act No. 814, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter “Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency”); and (e) Article 61 of the former State Public Officials Act against the Plaintiff.
1. When the captain (E and 72 years of age) of the D Group at the Seocho District Office on May 20, 2015, in violation of the special landscape, was arrested and directed at the Seocho District Office on May 20, 2015, and was detained until October 5, 2015 in the detention room of the Seocho High Police Station (No. 5, in the detention room of the Seocho High Police Station)
A. The F attorney-at-law sent out to the Plaintiff’s office (the director of the division) for convenience, including three times of using the copy of the F attorney-at-law identification card, interview at the Plaintiff’s office (the director of the division) (hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 1”) on September 23, 2015, 12:04-13:44 (1:40 minutes) on September 24, 2015, 10:12-10:48 (36 minutes) on September 24, 2015, and 12:50-15:13 (2 hours and 23 minutes) on September 24, 2015, even if the F attorney-at-law did not appear at the office of the Plaintiff (the director of the division) on at least 36 minutes, 23 hours, and provided convenience to the Plaintiff’s family members or three members of the company, etc. for a maximum of 23 minutes.