1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The details of the disposition 【Evidences 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), 3 and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on November 14, 1998, and promoted as of February 28, 2010 and as of June 30, 2016, respectively. By July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff served as a female juvenile at the Seoul Regional Police Agency’s living safety department and a school officer at H, and from July 12, 2016, in the Seoul Dongjak Police Agency I Zone from November 18, 2013 to September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was working as a member of the F Area of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education to review the case of school violence, and from April 13, 2015 to February 28, 2017.

B. On August 31, 2017, the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers of the Dongjak Police Station decided to take one month of suspension from office under Article 78(1)1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s following act violates Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 59 (Duty of Kindness and Impartiality), and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act, and the Defendant was subject to one month of suspension from office on September 5, 2017.

1. At around 10:00 to 11:00 on December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, with respect to B, attended a meeting as a friendly relationship with the victim’s father while not a member commissioned to the Autonomous Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) but does not have the right to participate in the meeting. In particular, the Plaintiff participated in the meeting by leading the meeting, such as opposing the participation of the aggressor student’s defense counsel, and participated in the resolution.

As a result, although "a written apology against victim student" was disposed of, the perpetrator raised a civil lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the disciplinary action against the perpetrator, and the court ruled that there is procedural defect due to the plaintiff's improper response, and tried in the judgment against B.

2. C seconds-related (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) is the District Office of Education on October 27, 2015 by the Plaintiff.