1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a police officer who served as a "sloping rank" at the Seoul B police station located under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Agency.

The defendant shall be the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency.

B. On December 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a three-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground of Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act.

The reason for disciplinary action was that the Plaintiff left work without permission after being ordered to work from November 8, 2014 to 9:00 a.m. on the following day while he was working for approximately 0.258% in blood alcohol concentration (hereinafter “reasons for disciplinary action”), and on November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff left work for about 15 p.m. at around 15 p.m. (hereinafter “reasons for disciplinary action”), and second, on October 25, 2014, the Plaintiff violated an order for direction by getting assigned to work from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on the same day and failing to fulfill his duty in good faith (hereinafter “reasons for disciplinary action”).

C. On January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Minister of Personnel Management (hereinafter referred to as the “Appeal Review Committee”) regarding the Defendant’s above disciplinary action.

On March 4, 2015, the appeals review committee decided that “The grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 are recognized to the Plaintiff, but the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 are not recognized,” and that “the above disciplinary action taken by the Defendant is modified to two months of suspension from office.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) of the Defendant’s disciplinary action that remains modified in accordance with the aforementioned decision of the appeals review committee (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) is without dispute, entry in the evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff did not dispute the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 in the instant case as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, namely, leaving the workplace without permission.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that he contests the complaint of this case.