beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on July 28, 2016 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on July 6, 2001, and served as a person in charge of police service. From June 14, 2016 to June 20, 201, the Plaintiff is a person in charge of a standby issuance to the Department of Living Safety at the Sungmun Police Station, which was issued on June 21, 201.
B. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff’s each of the instant violations (hereinafter “instant violations”); and (b) the Plaintiff’s each of the instant violations described in paragraphs (1) and (2) refers to “the violation of paragraphs (2) and (3)” as “the violation of paragraphs (3).”
(1) On July 28, 2016, a disposition of dismissal against the Plaintiff on July 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) following a resolution of the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers at the Seosung Western Police Station under Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity, 1, 2, 57 (Duty of Fidelity, 1, 1, 3 relating to the violation), 60 (Duty of Confidentiality, 3, 63 (Duty of Confidentiality, 1, and 2) of the State Public Officials Act (applicable law: Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act).
(1) On June 9, 2016, when the Plaintiff completed a two-time B course (period: from May 30, 2016 to June 10, 2016) conducted at Co fishing C C C (hereinafter “instant educational institution”), the entrusted educational institution, the Plaintiff was going to go through a meeting with approximately 18 students at the “D” restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and E (L, 42 years of age) who is an employee belonging to the instant educational institution, and want to go through a meeting with the so-called “Sariju” (the above trend is well attached to the so-called so-called Sariju’s entrance and drinking method according to drinking), while making the so-called “Mariju’s alcohol” (the day it is called as “Is no higher drinking” to the employees of the restaurant, and after the end of the meeting, I would like to go to go to the “Mari’s sexual harassment in the neighboring E-M.”
2 The plaintiff is his father-nam.