The court identified these elements in the conduct of the defendant towards M. T., which did not last long (4 months), the lack of the formulation of vulgarities towards M. T., the lack of direct reference to M. T. as a person (as the words directed by the defendant did not refer to M. T.'s personality traits, her appearance or manner of dress), but constituting, for the most part, reactions to shortcomings in the work carried out by M. T., as well as in M. T.'s attitude, manifested in her lack of "interest" in both the initiation and conduct of the disciplinary proceedings or their conclusion. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the circumstances indicated by the Court of First Instance are not mitigating in nature, but rather constitute aggravating circumstances. The words directed by the defendant towards the secretarial staff member, permanently cooperating, about regressing in development, not using one's brain or having to use it when carrying out instructions or orders, were undoubtedly of an offensive and degrading nature. Likewise, the allegations made against Ms T. of the deletion of part of the content of the minutes of the meeting or the draft documents from the memory stick had to be assessed. This is all the more so if one takes into account the fact that the conduct of the defendant led not only to unnecessary tensions in the workplace, deterioration of the atmosphere, but also to the disturbance of M. T.'s health resulting in her inability to work confirmed by a sick leave (cf. judgment of the Supreme Court of 7.06.2006, SNO 25/06, OSNSD 2006, item 9). It should be noted that regardless of what was the original cause of the defendant's behaviour the form in which she expressed her dissatisfaction could not find any justification. After all, a judge should be characterised not only by a sense of justice, objectivity, duty and dignity, but also by mastery, restraint in criticism, the ability to control emotions and, above all, not to externalise them in a way that is offensive to others. It is therefore a question of reasonable moderation, tact and culture in all spheres of a judge's activity, both in his official and extra-official relations. Pursuant to Article 82 § 2 act on ordinary courts., a judge should, on and off duty, uphold the dignity of the judge's position and avoid everything that could bring the dignity of the judge into disrepute. (see judgment of the Supreme Court of 1 April 2009, SNO 18/09). Pursuant to § 2 of the Collection of Principles of Professional Ethics of Judges (annex to the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of 19 February 2003), a judge should always be guided by the principles of integrity, dignity, honour, sense of duty and observe good morals, which should be taken for granted. This standard was clearly exceeded by the defendant - K. B..The judge's failure to observe the dignity of her office was a disciplinary offence under Article 107 § l in conjunction with Article 82 § 2 of the act on ordinary courts. In the factual circumstances of the case under consideration, it is undoubtedly the case that the defendant committed such an offence and, in view of the circumstances referred to above, this behaviour cannot be deemed a minor disciplinary offence. This, in turn, by virtue of the law, eliminates the possibility to waive the infliction of punishment provided for in Article 109, par. 5 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings. - in fine.With this in mind, the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 437 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with art. 128 of the A.s.p, changed the appealed verdict in the part concerning the penalty ruling and, departing from the qualification of the alleged disciplinary offence as a case of minor gravity, pursuant to art. 109, § 1, point 1, of the same Act, the Minister of Justice imposed on the defendant the disciplinary penalty of a caution - the mildest of the penalties provided for in the catalogue of disciplinary penalties, taking the view that it would be a sufficient sanction for the disciplinary offence found, taking into account the faultless attitude of the defendant judge to date, as well as the distress associated with the disciplinary proceedings which had been ongoing for five years. The 30 % reduction in basic remuneration for a period of two years proposed by the Minister of Justice would be an excessively harsh penalty and inadequate in relation to the act attributed to the defendant. All the more so if one takes into account the current - correct - relations prevailing in the [...] Criminal Division of the District Court in Z. Finally, it should also be pointed out that the Supreme Court had in mind that, as of 03 April 2018, the provision of Article 109 of the act on ordinary courts was amended by adding Article 109a of the A.s.p., which, in its current wording, provides that a final judgment of conviction of a disciplinary court shall be made public, while in situations indicated in § 2 of the cited provision, the disciplinary court may refrain from making the judgment public. Nevertheless, taking into account that the act attributed to K. B. took place "in the period from the end of August 2017 to 21 December 2017", as well as the content of Article 4 §1 of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court, when issuing the judgment in the present case, did not apply the norm resulting from the content of Article 109a of the act on ordinary courts, assuming that the law in force at the date of the act, i.e. at the date when the provision of Article 109a of the law on ordinary courts was not in force, was more relative to the defendant, and therefore it cannot produce legal effects provided for in this regulation. It should be noted that, irrespective of what was the root cause of the defendant's conduct the form in which the she expressed her displeasure could not find any justification. After all, a judge should not only be characterised by a judge's sense of justice, objectivity, duty and dignity, but also of also -mastery, restraint in criticism, the ability to to control his emotions and, above all, not to externalise them in a way that is offensive to others. It is therefore about sensible moderation, tact and culture in all spheres of a judge's activity, both in his or her official and extra-official relations. Pursuant to Article 82 § 2 u.s.p., a judge should, on and off duty, uphold the dignity of the position of a judge's position and avoid everything that could bring dishonour to the dignity of the judge (see judgment of the Supreme Court of 1 April 2009, SNO 18/09). Pursuant to § 2 of the Collection of Principles of Professional Ethics of Judges (annexed to the to the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of 19 February 2003), a judge should always be guided by the principles of integrity, dignity, honour, sense of duty and observe good morals, which, moreover should be taken for granted. This standard was clearly exceeded by the defendant.