logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.07.16 2014구합71832
해임처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On January 1, 2002, the Plaintiff served as a public official in charge of protection service appointed on January 1, 2002, such as Daejeon Juvenile Reformatory, Daegu Probation Office, etc., and served in B classification and protection division from August 12, 2013, and was in charge of the new post position.

[Grounds for disciplinary action against violation of the duty to maintain dignity (hereinafter “reasons 1”) committed an indecent act against the victim, such as taking the victim’s sexual organ as 2-3 second to 2-3 second hand, for about 35 minutes from March 14, 2014 to 16:15.

원고는 계속하여 C에게 “선생님도 야동을 본다. 너 야동사이트 아는 것 있냐”라고 묻고 ‘D’이라는 사이트를 소개받았으며, “거기에 서양 애들도 나오냐 , 너 나랑 진지하게 사귈 마음 없느냐 ”고 물어보는 등 부적절한 발언을 하였다.

At the time of the completion of the investigation, the Plaintiff: (a) after having considered C as “Finna Haba Haba”, the Plaintiff was asked C to see whether C was able to contain the left hand with C’s shoulder, to pante C’s panty, and to commit an indecent act at least two to three seconds with the end of the hand, and to see whether C was kicker.”

At around 17:30 on March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff violated the duty to obey (hereinafter referred to as “reason 2”) instructed the Plaintiff to work in the office for self-inspection, but refused to comply with the order, and threatened C with C as a living hall, “A was well receiving a match investigation, and reporting upon a request.”

On May 2, 2013, the Defendant rendered a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the grounds as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's statements as to Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff's sexual flag at the time of investigation into personal affairs.

arrow