1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. According to Articles 33 and 35 of the Decree on the Appointment of Police Officials, Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on the Appointment of Police Officials, etc., the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency delegates the implementation of an employment examination to the heads of affiliated organizations, etc., including the defendant, to the heads of the defendant, etc.., and the above employment examination is divided into a written examination, physical examination, physical examination, physical examination, comprehensive aptitude test, practical examination, interview, etc., and during which interview is conducted: ① aptitude as a police officer; ② accuracy and logical and expertise of the presentation; ③ character of the presentation of opinion; ③ character of character, service, aptitude, and morality (hereinafter “assessment item”); ④ An interview commissioner’s ability of special skills related to driving without driving and other police affairs; ④ An interview commissioner’s scores shall be assessed at least 40% of the total points, and a majority of the interview commissioner shall be disqualified if it is assessed at least two points in an evaluation item.

B. On February 12, 2014, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency publicly announced an employment examination for the first police officers (police officers) on February 12, 2014, and the Plaintiff applied for the above employment examination conducted by the Commissioner General of the Gyeonggi National Police Agency and passed the written examination, physical examination, and physical fitness examination, but failed in the interview conducted on June 9, 2014, and was excluded from the final announcement of successful candidates for the first police officer examination conducted on June 20, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff thought that the interview took place in the so-called B case in 2004 (the case where a male student, etc. in several hundreds of high school students, etc. entices female students, etc. to C and sexual assault, etc. to a group) and was investigated as a criminal suspect. At that time, the Plaintiff did not participate in the case B, and as a result, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition (the fact that the Plaintiff was investigated as a criminal suspect in relation to the case B and received the record of non-prosecution disposition as above).