1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning the above part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff committed the act indicated as the grounds for the instant disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant misconduct”), but in light of the following: (a) most of them were based on pro-friendly relations between the Plaintiff and the occupant; (b) the amount of damage is relatively minor; and (c) the Plaintiff served as a police officer for 27 years and served faithfully without being subject to the disciplinary action except the instant disposition; and (d) the instant disposition was excessively excessive and abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Whether to take any measure when a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is at the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action.

Therefore, the disciplinary action taken by the person having authority to take disciplinary action is illegal only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take disciplinary action has abused the discretionary power to the person having authority to take disciplinary action.

In determining the disciplinary action against a public official significantly lacks validity according to social norms, the contents and nature of the disciplinary action, the contents of the disciplinary action, and other various factors, such as characteristics of duties, the contents and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for disciplinary action, etc., should be considered as clearly unreasonable objectively.

Unless there are special circumstances such as that the standards for disciplinary action determined by the person having authority to take an internal disciplinary action and the standards for disciplinary action are unreasonable, it can be said that the relevant disciplinary action has considerably lost its validity under the social norms.