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 is a police officer who was appointed as an Inspector on March 1, 2010 and served in the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency B District District as of September 20, 2016.

B. On March 23, 2017, the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, upon the Defendant’s request for a disciplinary resolution, violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 57 (Duty of Good Faith), and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act, and resolved on two-month disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that it falls under disciplinary cause under Article 78 (1) 1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act, and the Defendant was subject to the aforementioned resolution, on March 27, 2017, and on March 27, 2017.

On September 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, at the time of performing his duties as the general affairs of the hearing auditor and auditor office, had the victim forcedly enter the victim's arms at the D convenience store located in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, and the victim left the victim's convenience store, depending on the victim's convenience store, the Plaintiff attempted to commit an indecent act, such as attempting to commit an indecent act with two arms, but the victim attempted to commit an attempted injury.

C. On June 13, 2017, the Appeal Committee filed an appeal seeking mitigation of the above disposition, and the Minister of Personnel Management changed the disposition of two months of the suspension from office imposed on the Plaintiff by the Defendant pursuant to Article 14(5)3 of the State Public Officials Act in full view of the following: “The Minister of Personnel Management did not limit the degree of damage to an attempted indecent act by force, and did not commit an indecent act by force, and the Plaintiff is against the Plaintiff, and there is no record of the same kind of punishment.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.