1. The Defendant’s suspension from office for one month on November 12, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 1998, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on March 7, 2006, and promoted to a slope on April 1, 2012, respectively. From March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff served in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Police Station (hereinafter “Dong documents”) B.

On September 2, 2015, between September 2, 2015 and September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff requested a proxy shooting for the same letter B and slope C (department in charge of education) around August 2015, which was conducted within the indoor shooting range of the Seoul Dobong Police Station (hereinafter “instant shooting training”), and violated the direction-making order, such as signing a letter on the shooting sheet, which was carried out by C slope around September 7, 2015, after the shooting was completed.

B. On November 12, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension from office for one month to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action was not of fact upon C’s request.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence No. 4, No. 2, No. 4, 5, and 10 of the evidence and the entire arguments, the Plaintiff stated that “an education-related education-related educational unit B and C,” and that the Plaintiff asked for an emergency rescue vehicle from the Plaintiff at the time of receiving cooperation from the Plaintiff in relation to the shooting training around August 2015, it can be acknowledged that: (a) the Plaintiff made a call to C on September 11, 2015, and that the Plaintiff requested the shooting of the same kind of business; and (b) the fact that the Plaintiff requested the shooting of an agent.

In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff participated in the shooting training of this case, the fact that C caused shooting assistants to die in an empty land, and caused them to conduct a shooting on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is related to shooting, such as a landmark around September 7, 2015, which was after the shooting training of this case was completed.