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 appointed on April 18, 1987 and promoted to the Republic of Korea on March 31, 2015, who served as the head of the Busan Regional Police Agency B district patrol team.

B. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant made a disposition of demotion against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act, as shown in attached Form 1, constitutes a violation of Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

C. On August 19, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed a petition review with the Ministry of Personnel Management, and the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on November 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff allegedly worked as a police officer for 30 years, 26 times during the period of service as a police officer, and 26 times during the period of service as a police officer, there was no record of disciplinary action, and the Plaintiff suffering from heart and spine disease, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful since it goes beyond the bounds of discretion or abused discretionary power by losing balance compared to the degree of flight.

(b) Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes;

C. Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken when a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official of the relevant legal doctrine as to the judgment 1 is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. Thus, a disciplinary measure taken by the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretion is illegal only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the discretion

In addition, disciplinary action against public officials is socially accepted.