1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 27, 1992, the Plaintiff has been appointed as Pyeongtaek-Gun Office B and has been performing duties of imposing and managing liability insurance fines and fines for negligence for regular inspections from November 18, 2008 to January 1, 2013.

B. While performing the above duties, the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 1,955,400, out of the charges for liability insurance and the charges for regular inspection, 13 times in total, from November 18, 2008 to January 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

C. On January 1, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 5-2 of the Police Assigned for Special Guard Act and imposed surcharges of KRW 1,955,400 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on May 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Rule concerning disciplinary action taken against a local public official of Eunpyeong-gun, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 5 of the Regulation on Disciplinary Action against the Police Officers of Pyeongtaek-gun (hereinafter “instant Rule”).

(2) Article 2(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree provides that “Embezzlement, such as public money,” and “misappropriation of public money, etc.,” as separate grounds for disciplinary action, and provides that “dispactation of public money, etc.,” and “use of public money, etc.,” with respect to “use of public money, etc.,” the disciplinary standards are set, depending on the degree of the degree of the misconduct. This is excessive beyond the scope of disciplinary action prescribed in Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree, which is a superior norm, so it shall not be considered when determining the legality of the disposition of the instant case. 2)