1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a police officer who was appointed as a policeman on November 27, 2009 and served in the Gyeonggi Mine Police Station B box from August 11, 2016 to March 201.

B. On August 25, 2016, the Defendant, following a resolution of the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers, issued a disciplinary measure for one month of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56, 57, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 18(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, Articles 10 and 10-2 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency, thereby falling under Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act.

1. On July 17, 2016, at around 21:43, the Plaintiff: (a) received 112 reports that both men and women are fighting at the front of Gwangju City C203; (b) concluded the instant case on the ground that the reporter’s civil petitioner (here) received the post-report; and (c) at this time, on July 18, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a phone call to the civil petitioner on the part of the civil petitioner at his/her place of residence and made improper calls during outside work hours, such as: (a) that the part of the civil petitioner who was assaulted against his/her head, can be detained.

2. 원고는 2016. 8. 8. 02:00경 원고의 핸드폰으로 "할 이야기가 있는데 그쪽 시간이 괜찮을 때 술 한잔 할까요."라고 카톡 문자를 보냈고, 당일 12:19경 민원인으로부터 "맛점하세요"라고 카톡을 받자 12:23경 "뜬금없이 같이 술 먹자고 카톡 문자보내서 많이 놀랐죠 놀랐다면 죄송해요"라고 문자를 보내는 등 직무상 알게 된 민원인에게 사적 만남을 시도하였다.

C. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request with the appeals review committee for review of an appeal against a disciplinary action for one-month period of suspension from office. On January 13, 2017, the appeals review committee made a decision to change the period of one-month period of suspension from office into one-month period of suspension from office.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), which has been changed to one month by the said decision, shall be deemed to have been the same.