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 was appointed as a policeman on June 10, 1992, and served in the Gyeongginam Police Agency, the Suwon Police Agency, the Suwon Police Agency, and the District B, from September 28, 2016, after promotion on June 1, 2014.

B. On May 2, 2017, the Suwon Police Station General Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 1 and 3 of the same Act. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The specific grounds for the disciplinary action are as follows.

On January 12, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) from around 19:30 on January 12, 2017, 4 employees working in B District (2 Team); and (b) after drinking alcohol, she was able to drive a vehicle of the victim on behalf of the victim and move the victim’s house to the victim’s house; (c) she was under the influence of alcohol at around 23:00; (d) was discharged from all clothes of the victim, she was under the influence of alcohol and attempted to engage in a sex relationship with the chest but did not occur.

C. On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal review request, and the Ministry of Personnel Management dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on August 17, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 (including virtual number), Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff committed a crime under the influence of alcohol and committed a contingent crime, was in depth and faithfully worked as a police official for twenty-five years, the instant disposition ought to be revoked as an illegal disposition that deviates from discretion or abused.

4. Determination on the legality of a disposition

A. Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official of the relevant legal doctrine.