When they left the lodging facility, the police officer who stole the goods from the room and impersonated the vice principal of the elementary school and found out the contact information of the female teacher filed an administrative lawsuit saying "dismissal of dismissal was illegal," but the courts of the second and subsequent courts did not accept it.

The Administrative Division of the Chuncheon Tribunal of the Seoul High Court retained the centrifugal decision that A's appeal was dismissed and the decision by the police officer A (41) to dismiss A's appeal against the Gangwon District Police Agency's 'Cancellation of Dismissal' appeal.

A police officer from the Gangwon Provincial Police Agency stayed at a hotel in Wonju City on the morning of June 27, 2018, during the time period, and secretly stole room amenities worth 42,000 won including slippers and gowns.

Also, on the 18th of May of the same year, he called the public elementary school on the afternoon of May 4 at 4:00 pm and pretended to be vice principal, and said, "I heard a rumor that I was pretty and called.

However, when the answer of "married" came back from the other person, this time, "If you have a pretty teacher among two teachers, give them two names and contact information," impersonating the qualifications of education officials and finding out the names of the two teachers.

The vice principal, who suffered the impersonation of the official name, sued Mr. A for defamation and impersonation as a civil servant.

A's allegations of theft were suspended in prosecution at the prosecution in July of that year, and the impersonation of the authorities was fined 80,000 won for violating the misdemeanor punishment law.

Immediately after the theft, Mr. A, who was dismissed, requested an appeal, but was dismissed and filed an administrative lawsuit in May last year.

During the trial, Mr. A asserted, "I made a theft by trauma and the heavy depression caused by heavy work. I wanted to know if my favorite teacher was married or not and acted silly to impersonate the publicity."

The trial court said, “After the appointment, I committed a theft for reasons of impersonation and impermissibility during the time signal. "No."

The Court of Appeals said, "In addition to theft, we committed not only theft, but also the accusation of victims of suspicion and accusation of the investigation."

(Photo = Yonhap News)