(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.8.18.선고 2016구합55476 판결

A. On December 16, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on December 16, 2002, and was promoted to the Inspector on March 31, 2015, and on March 7, 2012

11. There shall be work experience in the 112 comprehensive situation room of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station;

B. On September 12, 2015, at around 12:12: (a) one man walked by telephone to 112, and her mother and her mother are working in the house, and her mother are waiting to die with knife; (b) however, the police officer sent to her report of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the report of this case") but the remaining on the same case as the domestic violence report of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the separate report of this case") led to a delay in mobilization of the remaining site where the mother of the above male her knife with her mother and her mother are knife with her mother. This case (hereinafter referred to as "the murder case of this case").

C. The Defendant, subject to a resolution of the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers in Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Agency (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Officers)

30. The following disciplinary action was taken against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). The Plaintiff is related to the instant murder when working as a staff member at the 112 general situation room of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station, Seoul, and thus, on September 21, 2015: (a) if it was confirmed on September 21, 2015 that the perpetrator carried a deadly weapon at the time of receipt of the instant report, the Plaintiff did not order the perpetrator to take measures, such as taking checks and taking shots against such fact in comparison with the instant report (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”), and (b) if it is judged that the instant separate report was made by a majority reporter, the Plaintiff did not directly check the phone and instruct the reporter to take preventive measures against the instant accident (hereinafter “the first ground for the instant disciplinary action”).

2. Whether the instant disciplinary action is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disciplinary action should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) As to the ground for disciplinary action No. 1

Upon receipt of the instant report, the Plaintiff demanded the instant report and the instant report to verify whether the instant report and the separate report are identical to the same case, and if it is confirmed that it is not the same case, the Plaintiff was scheduled to designate a separate patrol vehicle and instruct the wearing of the police gear. In other words, since the dispatch elements of the instant report (the patrol vehicle) were not yet determined, the Plaintiff did not instruct the following matters (the wearing of the police gear) at the time of mobilization.

B) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

While the Plaintiff received a report from the employees in charge of the situation of the Korea-Nam Police Station and the police officer on the same case, the Plaintiff took measures to confirm whether the report of this case and the separate report are identical to the report of this case on two occasions. Upon receipt of the report from the reporter of this case, the Plaintiff determined that the same case was not the same when the report was received from the reporter of this case, and confirmed that the report of this case was not the same case, the Plaintiff sent the location of the reporter of this case, the perpetrator’s deadly weapons

Nevertheless, the dispatched police officers deemed two cases to be the same as the reporter at the time of the second and third request for confirmation, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not have to direct the reporter to confirm or confirm the same case by putting a telephone directly to the reporter of this case. Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider such measures as grounds for disciplinary action as improper. 2)

The Plaintiff ordered the police officers to confirm the same case even after receiving the report of this case that the report of this case and the separate report of this case are the same case, and received a total of 22 official commendation while faithfully working for 13 years as police officers, and even if he neglected to confirm the same case as a police officer in dispatch, he was subject to the reprimand disposition like the Plaintiff even though he caused the murder of this case. In full view of the fact that the disciplinary action of this case is contrary to the equity of disciplinary action, the disciplinary action of this case is excessive disciplinary action or deviates from and abused the discretion of disciplinary action against the equity of disciplinary action.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

1) On September 21, 2015: around 02, Hannam-dong 757-17, 17, and 1 of the branch office of Hannam-dong 757, and the instant separate report was received, and the patrol car Nos. 42 (Security ○○), and 43 (Security ○○○○) assigned to the patrol box of the Korean War was dispatched to the scene.

2) On September 21, 2015: around 12, 2012, at the 1112 general situation room of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, the report of this case was received that "A female-friendly Gu 753 - 13, 103 - 103 - her mother knife with knife and a female-friendly Gu her mother is waiting to die." The 112 general situation room of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency classified the report of this case as an " Code l" and sent it to the 112 general situation room of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station where the Plaintiff works.

In order to request the designation of patrol of the report of this case at the same time, the plaintiff spreaded the case of Hannam Police Station and violence (1275) . The worker at the situation of Hannam Police Station reported Pool Map (1260) to "the same as that of the report of this case," and the plaintiff will know about 21:13 times. Since the number of the report of this case differs, 42 and 43 cases are different, 42 and 43 of this case will be affixed to 42: 42 and 43 of this case, and 200 2 of this case's report of this case will be known to 1:42 and 43 of this case's report of this case, and 42 and 43 of this case's report of this case will be "2 of this case's report of this case', 300 :42 and 43 of this case's report of this case's report of this case and the plaintiff's remaining 42 of this case's report of this case'.

5) Accordingly, at around 21: Around 28, the Plaintiff’s 21: 28 patrol car No. 42 (Security ○○○) was the same as the instant report and the instant separate report were not the same. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s departure from Korea-dong 753 - 13, 103 was the place of the instant report.

However, at around 21:29, the reporter’s report on the instant separate case was the same as the Plaintiff’s report No. 103.

It is now 103 No. 103 now. The plaintiff reported that he had a knife whether or not he has a deadly weapon? Whether or not the reporter is male, and whether or not he or she is in the situation where he or she is born? There is a situation in which he or she reported? The son, his or her father, who was under the influence of drinking for a set of son and her father.

During the patrol, the plaintiff's 42 (2) No. 42 (2) was thought of confirming the deadly weapons, and confirmed that there was no deadly weapons by asking the separate reporters of this case to the fact that there was no deadly weapons. On the other hand, in light of the detailed case of the patrol car, the reporter's telephone number and address were different from each other in the details of the case of the patrol car, and reported that two cases were not the same cases at around 21:36.

16) At around 21: 41, the patrol 43 Ga 43 Ga 21: 41, but the mother of the reporter had already killed the son of a female-friendly her mother with the road.

7) On the other hand, the "12 Report Manual" prepared by the National Police Agency (hereinafter "the manual of this case") provides for the overlapping report by multiple reporters as follows. 【The same pre-report shall not be open to the same case at the time of the receipt of the duplicate report by a majority reporter, and it shall not be open to the same case at the time of the receipt of a separate report, unless it is confirmed that the case is the same as the case received by a majority reporter. - Where the patrol arrives at the site of the report of "the Guidelines for verifying the duplicate report by the number of reported persons - the phone calls to the recent reporter," and whether the patrol car arrives at the site of the report of "the phone of this case." * The patrol car of this case, which seems to have arrived at the seat of the reporter, shall be identified as the same location as the situation of the report of this case by asking whether or not "the police officer has passed" of this case, and the general situation room of this case shall be identified as the same location of the report of this case.

8 ) 이 사건 살인사건과 관련하여 한남파출소 상황근무자 경위 박○○는 감봉 3월, 순 찰차 42호 경찰관 경위 정○○은 감봉 2월, 순찰차 43호 경찰관 경장 조○○은 감봉 1월 , 용산경찰서 112종합상황실 근무자인 원고와 한남파출소장인 경감 이◆◆은 각 견책의 징계처분을 받았고, 이들이 제기한 소청심사에서 경장 조○○은 견책으로, 경감 이◆◆은 불문경고로 감경되었다 .

9) The Plaintiff, while holding office as a police officer for 13 years, received a total of 22 official commendation including two official commendations from the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, which was subject to mitigation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any)

D. Determination

1) As to the ground for disciplinary action No. 1

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff omitted orders, such as the place of the instant report, the perpetrator’s carrying a deadly weapon, and the order to carry a police gear in comparison with the police gear, such as the police gear, in violation of the instant manual at the time of the receipt of the instant report (it does not mean that there was no personal injury to the police officer in relation to the instant report case). This violates Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the same Act.

① According to the standard land order of the instant manual, the 112 comprehensive situation room workers shall, upon receipt of 112 reports, follow the order of 112, such as the decision of the mobilization element ? Order of dispatch location (in the case of a reporter / victim / witness / perpetrator / location of crime) / Order of caution at the time of dispatch (in the case of a police gear, such as a shot, a shot, etc.) / Order of caution at the time of dispatch.

② On September 21, 2015: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) received a report of this case from the general situation room of 112 general situation room at around 12, 2015 that the perpetrator carried a deadly weapon, and did not instruct the Defendant to carry the police gear, such as arrest clothes and the test, in preparation for a deadly weapon, to carry the police gear at the time of the report, even though the perpetrator’s emergency call case was over the seriousness of the report. (c) On September 12, 2015, the Plaintiff spreaded the police box to Korea, and issued an order to dispatch the police officer to the reported site. (d) At around 28, the Plaintiff did not instruct the Defendant to carry the police gear, such as arrest clothes and the test, in preparation for the deadly weapon.

③ Upon receipt of the instant report, the Plaintiff demanded the instant report to verify whether the instant report and the separate report are identical to the case, and if it is confirmed that it is not the same case, the Plaintiff would designate a separate patrol vehicle and instruct him to wear the police gear. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the patrol vehicle 42 and 43 was the dispatch element of the instant report. However, “determination of the dispatch element” means that the 112 comprehensive situation room employees designated the patrol vehicle and instruct him to send it to the reported place and check the same case. If it is suspected that the instant report are identical to the previous report, the Plaintiff ordered the patrol vehicle to be dispatched to the reported place and check the same case. However, the Plaintiff’s allegation is premised on the premise that the patrol vehicle sent to the site of the previous report can be confirmed the same case, but this cannot be accepted in that it did not constitute a separate dispatch element or a separate dispatch element.

④ In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that it was unnecessary for police officers, who were dispatched to the scene of the instant separate report, to re-transmit the details of the instant report on the ground that they reported two cases to the same case. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was no objective clear confirmation as to whether police officers were aware of the details of the instant report, and that the police officers did not give instructions to carry police gear, such as inspection clothes, in comparison with the fact that the details of the instant report are deadly weapons carried, and that there was no significant cause for the Plaintiff to believe that the instant report was the same case. Accordingly, in such a situation, the Plaintiff, who was employed in the 112 comprehensive situation room, could not arbitrarily omit the location of mobilization as to the details of the instant report stipulated in the instant manual. Thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation also cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the first ground for disciplinary action is recognized.

B) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff did not confirm the same case by means of telephone, etc., under the circumstances where the instant report and the separate report are suspected that they are duplicate reports, and that the Plaintiff did not prevent the instant murder due to the delay in mobilization of police officers to the instant report site. This constitutes a violation of Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the same Act.

① According to the manual of this case, in cases where the patrol car arrives at the scene of the report of 112's previous report "for the purpose of confirming duplicate report by a majority reporter," the driver should ask the reporter whether the patrol car arrives at the scene of the report of this case, and ask the reporter whether or not 'the location of all reports presumed to be the same case, or 'the location of all reports presumed to be the same case,' and make it confirmed the same case from the on-site police officer. Thus, in the situation where it is not confirmed that the report of this case and separate report of this case were duplicate report, the plaintiff, as the police officer arrived at the site of the report of this case, had the reporter of this case confirm the same case or spread the location of all reports presumed to be the same case without delay, so that the police officer at the on-site confirm the same case.

② On September 21, 2015: around 20: (a) the Plaintiff confirmed that the patrol car No. 43 arrives at the site of the instant report; and (b) did not take measures in accordance with the instant manual necessary for verifying duplicate reports by the police officer of the same case, even if he/she simply takes the report of the same police officer.

③ At around 21:28, the Plaintiff received the instant report from the instant reporter to demand the mobilization of the police officer, the Plaintiff demanded the instant report location and the offender’s carrying a deadly weapon to verify the same case while spreading it to the police officer, and did not take the necessary measures to confirm overlapping reports with the intent to believe only the horses of the police officer in mobilization who are deemed to be the same case again, and subsequently, the police officer sent the patrol car Nos. 42, which became aware that the same case was not the same through the detailed statement of the instant case during the patrol, etc., and the police officer sent it to the instant report site.

④ Although the Plaintiff ordered the Plaintiff to confirm the same case as above, the police officers were assigned to the same case at the same site with the reporter. However, according to the guidelines for verifying duplicate reports by a majority of the reporters of the instant manual, even in cases where the patrol car arrived at the site of the previous report, the police officers did not require the dispatched police officer to confirm the same case as the previous report, without requiring the reporter to confirm whether the previous report is identical with the previous report, and the employees of the 112 comprehensive situation room to confirm the same case by directly sending a phone to the reporter. Thus, the above circumstance alone alone does not require the Plaintiff to confirm the same case by posting a phone to the reporter of the instant report.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the police officer, by confirming whether a duplicate report is made, can ask the reporter either directly or by telephone, and that the Plaintiff’s report of this case and separate report are the same? The Plaintiff’s instructions for the above methods have been reduced to the dispatched police officer. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that it would take necessary measures to confirm the duplicate report.

However, the instant manual requires the 112 comprehensive situation room workers to check the same case by posting a telephone directly to the recent reporter, and even if it is allowed for the 112 comprehensive situation room workers to instruct or substitute the situation workers or dispatch police officers in consideration of the working conditions, etc., the instant manual provides for specific questions to be verified to the reporter, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s measures for confirmation of overlapping report as stipulated in the instant manual with respect to the dispatched police officer’s instructions are included in the instant manual, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(6) Furthermore, after the Plaintiff received the instant report, accurate dissemination of the instant report details (in particular, the place of report and the perpetrator’s possession of a deadly weapon) in accordance with the instant manual, and if the police officer, etc. were to take necessary measures to confirm overlapping reports in the situation where the instant report and the separate report are deemed identical to the instant case, it was confirmed early that two cases were not identical, so on, the on-site police officers could promptly dispatch the instant report to the site of the instant report, and further, it appears that the instant murder case could have been sufficiently prevented.

Therefore, the grounds for the second disciplinary action are recognized.

2) Relevant legal principles concerning the adequacy of disciplinary action

When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is placed at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it may be illegal. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it should be determined that the disciplinary measure is objectively unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 197Nu14637 delivered on November 25, 1997, etc.).

B) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the health team as to the instant case and the purport of the entire facts and arguments acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to view the instant disciplinary action as deviating from or abusing discretionary power, even if the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff are considered to the maximum extent possible.

① As an employee of the Yongsan Police Station 112 Overall Situation Room, the Plaintiff is obligated to thoroughly understand the work manuals and take appropriate measures appropriate for the situation in light of the characteristics of the duties that require the duty to promptly dispatch police officers to the scene of the incident and take necessary measures.

② Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not properly disseminate the place of the instant report and the perpetrator’s carrying with a deadly weapon in violation of “112 Report Manual,” and did not take all necessary measures to confirm the return of the second report as stipulated in the said Manual on the ground that the Plaintiff believed only the erroneous report by the police officer, etc. of the same case as the separate report of this case received earlier.

③ Such errors by the Plaintiff and the police officers, etc. were concurrent, resulting in the police officer being called back at the site of the instant report, resulting in the death of the victim as a result of not preventing the instant murder incident, which led to the serious consequence of the victim’s death, which led to the large reporting of this fact to the press, thereby seriously impairing the police’s honor as well as seriously impairing the public’s trust in the police.

④ The Plaintiff, as an employee of the 112 comprehensive situation room, was in a position to act as a control tower with respect to the receipt and processing of the 112 report, but was in a position to act as a control tower. However, in accordance with the above manual, the Plaintiff appeared to depend excessively on the report, etc. by a field police officer. If the Plaintiff properly confirmed whether the instant murder occurred due to cross-section or overlapping with the dispatched police officer in accordance with the above manual, it would be deemed that the Plaintiff’s mistake was too heavy for the on-site police officer.

⑤ According to Article 4(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Measures, etc. against Police Officers [Attachment 1], Article 4(1) of the same Act provides that the Plaintiff’s above misconduct committed by an actor shall be punished by reprimand or salary reduction even in cases where the degree of such misconduct committed by the Plaintiff is weak and transitional. The instant disciplinary action also conforms to the above criteria for disciplinary measures, in that it determined the level of disciplinary action by reflecting twice an official commendation given to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, who is a public official subject

④ Since the Plaintiff and the police officer called to the 112 comprehensive situation room, who were working for the Plaintiff and the 112 comprehensive situation room employees, the police officer, not only committed offenses, but also cannot be deemed that the degree of the Plaintiff’s misconduct is smaller than that of the 112 general situation room, the instant disciplinary action cannot be said to be contrary to the principle of equity solely on the ground that the level of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and 2

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disciplinary action is lawful and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges Park Jong-soo

Judges Park Jae-young

Judge Shee-hee

Note tin

1) The phrase " October 27, 2015," written in the complaint's column, appears to be a clerical error in the above date of disciplinary action as the date of disciplinary action (No. 1, 10 evidence).

[Reference] .

Site of separate sheet

A person shall be appointed.

참조조문

-국가공무원법 제56조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016. 6. 17. 선고 2016가단2348 판결

-서울행정법원 2016.08.18 2016구합55476

-부산고등법원 2018.01.12 2017누21920

-수원지방법원 2020.11.26 2020고정922

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.02.08 2017구합30390