[1] Criteria for determining whether a disciplinary action against a public official has abused discretion

[2] The case holding that a correctional officer's dismissal disposition against a prison officer who delivers daily goods prohibited from being admitted to prison prisoners and receives money and valuables and entertainment from his family members is lawful

[1] Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against a person subject to disciplinary action, who is a public official, is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretion significantly lacks validity under the social norms, it can be deemed unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined by taking into account 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 a disciplinary decision, etc., depending on the specific cases, it should be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure are objectively unreasonable.

[2] The case holding that a correctional officer's dismissal disposition against a prison officer who received money and other valuables and entertainment from his family members is lawful by delivering daily goods prohibited from being admitted to prison prisoners

[1] Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act / [2] Articles 56, 61 (1), 78 (1), and 79 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 7 of the Criminal Administration Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14637 delivered on November 25, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 123), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8755 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 135), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1188 delivered on October 9, 198 (Gong1998Ha, 2697)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 97Gu16008 delivered on June 18, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where 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 authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the discretionary authority vested in the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure since the disciplinary measure as the exercise of discretionary authority has considerably lost validity under social norms. In order for a disciplinary measure against a public official to have considerably lost validity under social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined in a case where it can be objectively and objectively deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and objectively unfair 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 a disciplinary decision, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on macro-visual evidence: the plaintiff was appointed as a correctional officer on October 30, 1989 and served as a correctional officer belonging to the prison security and correctional institution, and the defendant's disposition of dismissal was made on the phone number notified by the prisoner and sent 700,000 won to the ward and his/her relative, and the defendant was not only provided with entertainment and cash and cash 50,000 won, which are prohibited from borrowing, but also 4th, 10 of 20 of 200,000 won, and the above goods were kept in custody of the plaintiff in prison security and be delivered to the above prisoner at night work. The court below found that the plaintiff's misconduct violated the duty of integrity as provided in Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 61 of the same Act, and the defendant's final dismissal disposition of this case was justified in light of the purpose, function and importance of work regulations of the administration, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's disciplinary action against the plaintiff's duty and discretion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)