1. The dismissal disposition taken by the President against the Plaintiff on June 2, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff was appointed as the head of July 8, 199, and served as the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Agency B police station of the National Police Agency from July 1, 201 to July 1, 2012, and as the head of the National Police Agency C police station of the National Police Agency from July 2, 2012 to November 19, 2012, and was promoted to the head of the DNA division of the National Police Agency of the National Police Agency from November 20, 2012 to January 14, 2014.

After that, from January 15, 2014 to December 21, 2014, the Plaintiff served as Gwangju Metropolitan City Police Agency E and F, and served as a policy research institute for the National Police Agency from December 28, 2015 through the head of the G Police Agency of the National Police Agency.

On November 11, 2015, the defendant was notified by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office that the plaintiff visited Makao over three occasions on June 201, 2012, around September 2012, and around February 2, 2014, H and I had H and I bear hotel expenses, food expenses, and transportation expenses.

After undergoing an inspection and investigation, the defendant requested a resolution on disciplinary action against the plaintiff, and the National Police Officers Central Disciplinary Committee of the National Police Agency (amended by Act No. 13288, May 18, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") decided on dismissal and disciplinary action surcharge of KRW 6,760,00 on May 20, 2016 on the ground that the plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 57 (Duty of Integrity), 61 (Duty of Integrity) and 63 (Duty of Integrity) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 1328, May 18, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by committing the following acts. Accordingly, the President dismissed the defendant on June 2, 2016 and imposed a disciplinary action surcharge of KRW 6,760,000.

1. Acceptance of money, goods and entertainments;

A. The Plaintiff, who received approximately KRW 47.66 billion of travel expenses from a person related to his duties abroad, was accompanied by Macaro for three times over three times as follows, with H(57 years of age and detention) (the Defendant for habitual overseas gambling) in an amount equivalent to 17 billion won, and the Plaintiff was charged with travel expenses equivalent to KRW 4.76 billion of travel expenses, such as aviation fees and hotel expenses.

5. The term of this section.