1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 3, 1990, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman and promoted to the police officer on July 1, 2014. From July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure for one-month suspension from office on September 5, 2015 due to the following disciplinary reasons.

The Plaintiff, as a police officer, complied with all relevant laws and subordinate statutes, and was prohibited from doing any act detrimental to dignity, regardless of whether he/she is a servant of all citizens, and regardless of whether he/she is on duty or inside or outside of office, and (1) on August 10, 2014, the Plaintiff took anti-end measures against D on the ground that the driver D was not in good faith in the course of regulating the drunk driving before the G Elementary School in Ansan-si (hereinafter “grounds for disciplinary action”).

(2) On August 13, 2014, around 12:58, 2014, in order to gather information about the Plaintiff’s use of the horses, the head of the B police box in the process of talking with the E-witter affiliated with B police box who visited B police box, and reported false information to the press (hereinafter “grounds for Disciplinary Action 2”), and such act violates Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 59 (Duty of Good Faith and Impartiality), and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

B. On December 15, 2014, the appeals review committee made a decision to change the period of suspension from one month to one-month disciplinary action of salary reduction, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence that the Plaintiff made a rebuttal to D in the course of regulating drunk driving due to lack of evidence as a result of the relevant review, which led to the change of the period of suspension from office into one-month disciplinary action of salary reduction.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), which was amended on September 5, 2015 by the disposition of January of the salary reduction (hereinafter referred to as “the disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 15 of the State Public Officials Act concerning the existence of the grounds for the first disciplinary action on the ground of disposition.