Main Issues
The case holding that a disposition to dismiss a prisoner in court in light of the period of service, work performance, and excessive work quantity, etc., even though the person in court attendance had the inmate escape solely from the working attitude during the supervision of the court attendance at the court.
Summary of Judgment
Removal of a prisoner in court from office based on the period of service, work performance, excessive amount of work, etc. even though he/she had a prisoner appear in court only on the ground of his/her working attitude during the supervision
The case holding that a disposition was a deviation from discretionary power
[Reference Provisions]
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 68 and 78 of the State Public Officials Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant-Appellant
The Minister of Justice
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu615 delivered on August 19, 1982
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's non-indicted 1 and 2, who were the co-offenders present at the court room in Yeongdeungpo-gu and the supervisor of the court room in Seoul District Court on June 5, 1981, had been subject to the above 1st 5th son's order of inspection of facts and violated the rules of evidence inspection and supervision of the non-indicted 1 and 4 at the court room in order to be tried on June 5, 1981, and that the non-indicted 1 and 3 were confined to the same room in the same room, and that the non-indicted 1 and 4 had already been allowed to divide the knife for the purpose of crime into non-indicted 2 and 4, and that the non-indicted 1 and 5 had been subject to the above knife's order of inspection of facts during the above court room in order to escape with the knife's own knife's own k.
The issue is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)