The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons stated in this case by the court of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination by this court (the plaintiff's assertion) was made by this court (the plaintiff's inquiry was made for the purpose of producing intelligence related to crime, and there was no private purpose.

Even if the plaintiff violated the guidelines by inquiring about a case for private purposes, the defendant's disciplinary action is illegal as a deviation from and abuse of discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality.

[2] Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration, Sept. 2, 2014) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Security, Sept. 2, 2014) provides that “The Disciplinary Committee may reduce disciplinary action in accordance with the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action in attached Table 3 if a person for whom a disciplinary resolution was requested has rendered a meritorious service selected as an exemplary public official in accordance with the Rules of the Public Officials Act.”

In this case, the fact that the plaintiff was selected as an exemplary public official on June 30, 2005 and received an official commendation from the Prime Minister is recognized (A18), but the defendant is deemed to have determined disciplinary action by considering that disciplinary action can be mitigated depending on these circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the defendant's disposition is excessive.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim based on the conclusion, is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are borne by the losing plaintiff.