2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

(A) The grounds alleged by the Defendant and the Intervenor in the appeal are not significantly different from the facts alleged in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court are justifiable). [Attachment 20 of the first instance court’s 4th 7 and 8th 8th 7th 8th 14th 7 of the first instance court’s judgment to delete “A” (Article 2017 senior 598). The Intervenor appealed on May 10, 2018. The Seoul Central District Court reversed the lower judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing on the grounds of unfair sentencing and sentenced the Defendant to eight months of imprisonment (Article 2018No768). However, the Supreme Court again appealed on July 23, 2018 (Article 2018No8084).”

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s statement concerning the Intervenor’s officers and employees was made after the post-assessment of the Intervenor’s status under the HB’s territorial defense power, and is inconsistent with the HA and the Intervenor’s dialogues, as well as also inconsistent with the Intervenor’s various performance and performance. The instant notification of rejection based on an arbitrary settlement of the Intervenor’s status without any objective ground is unlawful. 2) The grounds for refusal of recruitment should be limited to the objective evaluation of the Intervenor’s ability and duty eligibility during the trial period. As such, it cannot be deemed as an important reason for consideration in determining the legitimacy of the career that was confirmed after the notice of refusal of recruitment.

B. We examine the defendant's arguments in order.

1 The Intervenor of H Jeon-young shall be the Intervenor.