1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the grounds for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the grounds for the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no fact that H made a solicitation of the horses for drinking driving cases, and there was no fact that he forced K to resolve the crackdown on drinking alcohol driving, forced K to resign, and provided money and valuables in return, and even if he provided money and valuables to K, this does not constitute the delivery of money and valuables to K in relation to the duties of K. Thus, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for

Even if there are some grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the dismissal is too harsh considering the merits such as commendation given by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant disposition is erroneous by misapprehending the facts concerning the grounds for disciplinary action and by exceeding the discretionary authority.

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. Facts of recognition 1) R (alias E, hereinafter “E”)

A) On October 23, 2012, around 00:30, at the vicinity of G bus stops located in F of the G in the Geum-gu, Busan, a call was made to the effect that the Plaintiff, who was aware of the fact, was under the influence of drinking driving as above, was under the control of drinking driving, as he was subject to the restriction from J working in the Geum-gu Police Station guard traffic and the traffic safety department 2 teams. (2) The Plaintiff called the above phone to K who was working in the Geum-gu Police Station guard traffic and the traffic safety department 3 teams of the traffic safety department, and directly called the above drinking control site at the above drinking control site, and returned to his house after communicating with H who was in charge of drinking control at the time.

3) At around 01:00 on the same day, the three teams, including J, carried E to the Franchising Police Station at around 01:00 on the same day. (4) On the other hand, K, immediately after receiving the phone from the Plaintiff, called the Franchising Police Station and called the Plaintiff at around 00:55 on the same day, and on the same day, after having arrived at the Franchising Police Station.