The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Even if the exercise of the right to discipline against a public official is placed at the discretion of the appointing authority, if it violates the principle of proportionality by selecting an excessive disciplinary measure, which is more balanced than the degree of flight which is considered as grounds for disciplinary action, or if it violates the principle of equality by selecting a disciplinary measure which is contrary to the standards generally applied without reasonable grounds for the same degree of flight, and thereby violates the principle of equality, such disciplinary measure shall be beyond the limits of discretionary authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du19211, May 11, 2007, etc.).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to dismissal of the plaintiff on the ground of the plaintiff's misconduct (hereinafter "disposition of this case"), the court below held that the disposition of this case is unlawful because of excessive disciplinary action which has lost balance compared to the degree of the plaintiff's misconduct, which affected the principle of proportionality.

was made.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the deviation and abuse of discretion of disciplinary action.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Jae-han