logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.04.23 2019구합66668
강등처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2015 to June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff is a public official working in the Seoul-gu Living Health Department and serving in the same resources circulation department from June 21, 2018 to the same Gu.

B. On December 10, 2018, the Defendant made a demotion to the Plaintiff on the following grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disposition”). A.

On March 9, 2017, the Plaintiff made a speech of sexual harassment to the victim C (hereinafter “victim C”), who is a staff member of the same group, by making a fluencing fly with women, etc. at the meeting place. On July 2017, the Plaintiff made a speech of sexual harassment by making a flucing fly with women, etc. at the meeting place, and committed an indecent act, such as making a dance suitable for seeing in the singing room, and then making a sexual speech and behavior, such as “I am flucen” at the meeting place.

B. On May 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) came to the victim D (hereinafter “victim 2”); (b) on the day on which the reporting of the case of sexual assault against a female female member of the island village, “I think it is about the case of rape; and (c) around August 2017, the Plaintiff made a statement that “I think it is difficult to see the female member’s body,” and (d) on the same day of the report of the case of sexual assault against a female member of the island village, “I think it is about the female member’s sexual intercourse.” (c) during the branch training, the Plaintiff made a statement about the female member’s sexual intercourse.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for appeal and the attached Forms of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the entries in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff did not engage in any act identical to the grounds for the instant disposition.

The victim 1 saw that the plaintiff refused the request for the transfer area, and gathered the plaintiff.

The investigator distorteds the facts by forcing a witness to make a false statement in the disciplinary procedure and forcing the plaintiff to make a false confession.

B. Determination of Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, 5, 8 through 10, 12 through 16, 18, 19, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, and witness Nos. 1 and 2.

arrow