1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On August 4, 1990, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on August 4, 199, and was promoted to the Inspector on March 1, 2008. From January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff served as the 4 patrol team leader in Busan Jin Police Station B District.

On September 27, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56, 61, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act due to the following reasons (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason”).

Police Officers C and D received reports on May 22, 2017, and dispatched them to the site. On the part of the State, E, which is the state of the State, spite C, spite D's spite, spite D's spite, spite D's spite, and spite D's spite as its head, and C and D arrested E as a flagrant offender under suspicion of obstruction of performance of official duties.

Since then, the plaintiff, C, and D conspired to receive money and valuables from the parents of E on the condition that they do not enter E while preparing for the criminal for joining E, and did not report the occurrence of the case to the police station.

In addition, the plaintiff contact with E's mother-friendly F and 1.5 million won in cash in return for handling the case of a son's deposit," and then C and D transferred her to the her mother-friendly F to the her mother-friendly F and received her her 1.5 million won in cash in the street near the Haak-gu G in Busan, Busan, and then transferred her her f to the her mother-friendly F and her her mother-child her mother-child her mother-child her mother.

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff rejected the above disposition of dismissal, filed a petition review with the appeals review committee, and the appeals review committee rendered a decision that “the Defendant’s dismissal on September 27, 2017 shall be changed to the dismissal of the Plaintiff.”

On July 19, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to change the removal of the Plaintiff from office on September 27, 2017, according to the decision of the appeals review committee.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On the other hand, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.