[1] Whether a disciplinary action, which was decided without presenting the public matters to be submitted to the deliberation process by the disciplinary committee, is unlawful (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that disciplinary action was unlawful in case where Gap, a police officer, violated an order to refrain from having access to amusement establishments, etc., such as avoiding disturbance in drinking, and violated his duty to maintain dignity as a police officer, and the chief of a police station reprimanded Gap in accordance with the disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee

[1] According to Article 7(6)3 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, when requesting a disciplinary resolution against a public official, a written confirmation stating not only the relevant materials necessary to prove the grounds for disciplinary action, but also the “public figure subject to mitigation” shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Committee. According to Article 9(1)2 and attached Table 10 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Police Officials, the public figure given official commendation by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency is defined as one of the grounds for mitigation of disciplinary action. In light of the above relevant statutes and the records, a disciplinary decision made without presenting the public figure required to be submitted to the deliberation process by the Disciplinary Committee is unlawful as it fails to abide by the disciplinary procedure prescribed by statutes, regardless of whether the disciplinary action is appropriate or not.

[2] In a case where Gap, a police officer, violated an order to refrain from having access to amusement establishments, etc., such as avoiding disturbance in drinking, and violated his duty to maintain dignity as a police officer, the chief of a police station imposed a reprimand against Gap in accordance with the disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee, the case affirming the judgment below to the effect that the disciplinary action was unlawful as it did not follow the procedure prescribed by law, regardless of whether it is appropriate, on the ground that the above disciplinary action was determined in a state where the certificate was not presented, which stated a public figure that should have been presented during the deliberation process of the disciplinary committee, which was a public figure that should have been presented.

[1] Article 7(6)3 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, Article 9(1)2 and attached Table 10 of the Regulations on Disciplinary Action against Police Public Officials / [2] Article 7(6)3 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, Article 9(1)2 and attached Table 10 of the Regulations on Disciplinary Action against Police Public Officials

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chief of the Western Police Station

Daejeon High Court Decision 2011Nu622 decided July 21, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant disciplinary procedure, which was conducted in such a state, was unlawful even if the mitigation was voluntary, inasmuch as the instant confirmation document was not submitted to the Disciplinary Committee, despite the fact that the Defendant, at the time of the Defendant’s request for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, was prepared, and did not separately report the public fact, despite the fact that the instant confirmation document, which was the grounds for mitigation of disciplinary action, was prepared. Furthermore, the lower court determined that the said defect was not cured even if the confirmation document was submitted during the appeal review procedure that was instituted by the Plaintiff after the instant disciplinary action.

According to Article 7(6)3 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, when requesting a disciplinary resolution against a public official, a written confirmation stating not only the relevant materials necessary to prove the grounds for disciplinary action, but also the “public official subject to mitigation” shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Committee. According to Article 9(1)2 and attached Table 10 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Police Officials, public officials given official commendation by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency shall be defined as one of the grounds for mitigation of disciplinary action. In light of the relevant statutes and the relevant records, the instant disciplinary action is determined in a state where public matters to be submitted are not presented in the deliberation process of the Disciplinary Committee, and thus, it is unlawful as it fails to comply with the disciplinary procedure prescribed by statutes, regardless of whether such disciplinary action is appropriate. The lower court is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it does not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the facts alleged by the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action constitute “the acceptance of money and other valuables or entertainments related to duties” and thus cannot be subject to reduction of the amount of remuneration. However, according to the records, the Plaintiff can be known to the effect that the Plaintiff was referred to disciplinary proceedings only for violation of the duty to maintain dignity and violation of the instruction order. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)