Dismissals for police officers in receipt of cash from the subway site office;

Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person having an authority to take disciplinary action, and thus a disciplinary measure is illegal only when it is recognized that a police officer who has been in charge of civil affairs such as application for traffic control by subway Corporation has abused the person having authority to take disciplinary action. If a police officer, who has been in charge of civil affairs such as application for traffic control due to subway Corporation, has received a 1.50,000 won amount from the head of the subway Construction Site Office, the defendant selected the person from office as a type of disciplinary action, and it cannot be said that

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 27 of the Police Officers Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu63 delivered on August 29, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff, as a superintendent of the Seodaemun Police Station, received a sum of KRW 150,000,000 from Nonparty 2, a manager of the subway Site Office in the Seocho Police Station where the non-party 1 Co., Ltd. is in charge of traffic control application, etc. as a superintendent, and received KRW 30,000,000,000 from April 30, 30, and KRW 30,000,000 from July 30, 30, and KRW 30,000,000 from July 30, 200. The court below was just in light of the records, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as to the above facts-finding process, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to disciplinary action against the person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of discretionary authority.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)