beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a public official in the protective position who was appointed as B on April 14, 1997 and was promoted to C on July 25, 201 and served as F and G in the branch of the D Probation Office E (hereinafter “E branch”) of the Ministry of Justice from January 1, 2016 to May 16, 2017.
B. The inspector in charge of the Ministry of Justice determined that it is reasonable to conduct an inspection and investigation on the fact that the Plaintiff used the budget for performing official duties for a purpose other than the purpose (the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1), the E branch office affiliated with H I, J (K), and L (M) under the direction and supervision of the Plaintiff (the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2-A, (b), the grounds for disciplinary action), the executive board and the meeting place, etc. conducted an inspection and investigation on the fact that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain good faith and the duty to maintain dignity of public officials (the grounds for disciplinary action No. 3-A, (b), the grounds for disciplinary action) and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to make a resolution of disciplinary action on May 11, 2017 pursuant to Articles 56, 63, and 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act.
C. On August 18, 2017, the Central Disciplinary Committee decided that the Plaintiff shall be punished by demotion on the grounds of the disciplinary reasons (hereinafter “instant disciplinary reasons”), excluding “sexual harassment on the part of June 10, 2016,” among the grounds for the disciplinary reasons set forth in Section 2 A, and accordingly, the Defendant demoted the Plaintiff on September 5, 2017.
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(D) On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition review with the Ministry of Personnel Management on September 29, 2017, and the appeals review committee rendered a decision to dismiss the said petition on January 9, 2018. [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and evidence A Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
set forth in the evidence Nos. 23 and 24, and oral proceedings.