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 was appointed as a policeman on July 12, 1997, and promoted to a slope on December 1, 2008. From July 16, 2011 to November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff served for the Japan Police Station Cyber Criminal Investigation Team and served for the same Police Station Economic Team from November 8, 2012.

B. On December 27, 2012, the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers in the Yongsan Police Station decided to reprimand the Plaintiff pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and 57 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act as the grounds for disciplinary action following the decision, and the Defendant issued a reprimand (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the same day according to the above decision.

Police officers shall observe all Acts and subordinate statutes and faithfully perform their duties, and shall obey an order of superior officers to perform their duties.

Nevertheless, on November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) visited a person to be polleded in the Suwon Detention House on the ground of an interview without being confined to the police computer network e-person; (b) filed an application for business trip hours of 09:0 to 20:00; and (c) did not obtain a report or approval from the team leader; (c) started a police station on the same day at around 11:20 on the same day; (d) went to the police station on the same day and went to work for about 5 hours and 10 minutes on the same day; and (d) went to work for him to return to around 16:30 on the same day and went to work for about 5 hours and 10 minutes on the same day (hereinafter “the ground of disciplinary action”); and (d) fraud case (number 12-15474; hereinafter “the instant fraud case”); and (d) transferred on August 13, 2012 to the team leader (hereinafter “the case of this case”).

9. From 27. to 8.1. of the same year, he neglected to work by neglecting the progress of each investigation and the intermediate notice of this case for 42 days.

(hereinafter referred to as "grounds for the second disciplinary action") c.

The plaintiff seeks cancellation or mitigation of the instant disposition to the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration.