1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On February 28, 1997, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman, and promoted to the reduction on November 28, 2014, and served as the chief of the department in charge of the police station in charge of dispatching the Seoul National Police Agency from January 29, 2019 (as from September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was serving as the chief of the department in charge of the police station in charge of dispatching the Seoul National Police Agency (as from September 5, 2019). A petition was filed against the Plaintiff to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Police Agency around July 2019.

As a result of the investigation, the fact of suspicion against the plaintiff was confirmed.

On December 6, 2019, the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Police Agency decided to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2019, and the Defendant issued a disciplinary action for February of salary reduction to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). A request for review of the original high-priced appeal, but did not support the Plaintiff.

The grounds for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff are as follows.

Reasons for disciplinary action 1 / [Restriction on Use, such as annual leave, reflector, flexible work]

(a) Giving an employee’s annual burden at the time of use: See Section 1(a) of [Attachment 1]

B. Assumption of burden on employees at the time of using flexible work: See Attached Table 1-Na 1-B [Attachment 2]: See Attached Table 1-2: 3 [Creation of an atmosphere where the use of flexible work hours is restricted]: See Attached Table 1-3] 4: See Attached Table 1, 5 [Non-personal Treatment] : 6] See Attached Table 1-5 [Attachment 1] 6] : See Attached Table 1-6] : See Attached Table 1-7 [Attachment 1-7] : See Attached Table 1-7 [Attachment 1] ; See Attached Table 1-2] 1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, and 3-2.

As to the allegation that there is no ground for disciplinary action, the plaintiff asserts that part of the grounds for disciplinary action is different from facts, and even if such action is recognized, friendlyness.