1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After being appointed as a police officer on March 19, 194, the Plaintiff served as a deputy chief inspector at the Gyeongnam Police Agency B police station’s office from February 2, 2015 to February 18, 2018. From February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff served as a vice chief inspector at the Gyeongnam Police Agency B police station’s office. From February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff served in the same police station patrol box.

B. On March 23, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”) as follows violated Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act, the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for one month of salary reduction.

On April 29, 2017, when the Plaintiff was working as a vice auditor of the B police station, on April 29, 2017, the Plaintiff neglected to provide the identity of the reporter by transmitting the case of sexual misconduct between employees in the D Zone D District to E, “F, at the same time, reported to the Audit and Inspection Office of the B police station, along with the fact that the damage was inflicted on the F, belonging to the same district police station,” and neglected to perform his duties, such as neglecting his duties without taking measures to recover the damage.

C. On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the above disciplinary action, filed a petition review with the appeals review committee, and the appeals review committee rendered a decision to change the said disciplinary action to reprimand.

(hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. While the absence of a disciplinary cause is discussed in the future regarding E and sexual misconduct cases, which are the D District Register, the Plaintiff also talked about the need to verify the identity of the reporter, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an act of exposing the identity of the reporter.

In addition, the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the false question about the victim and the reporter was spreading, and the second damage occurred.