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

A. On January 21, 2008, the Plaintiff, who was appointed as a public official of Grade VII in the protective position (the protective assistant), served in the B Probation Office to which the Defendant belongs from January 17, 201.

B. On November 20, 2012, the Ministry of Justice passed a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff based on Articles 78(1), 56, 57, 59, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act on grounds of disciplinary action as shown in attached Table 1 with respect to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on December 6, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disciplinary measure that “A person who is subject to dismissal pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the same ground as the above’s result,” and issued the same personnel order against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2012.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal under 2013-16 with respect to the said disciplinary disposition of dismissal to the appeals review committee (hereinafter “committee”) as prescribed in Article 9 of the State Public Officials Act.

On June 5, 2015, the Committee rendered a decision that “The Committee should give the Plaintiff an opportunity to further perform its duties by taking account of the fact that the grounds for the disciplinary action cannot be recognized as grounds for the disciplinary action and that only the remainder is recognized as grounds for the disciplinary action, and that the Plaintiff seems to have suffered emotional or physical problems, such as the shot disc, etc., rather than reprimanding the Plaintiff as a disciplinary action with the exclusion of the Plaintiff,” on the ground that “the Defendant changed the dismissal disposition taken on December 6, 2012 against the Plaintiff to three months of the suspension from office.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of suspension from office” as a result of a change in accordance with the above decision. 【Disposition of suspension from office of this case’) / [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole

2. Whether the suspension from office of this case is legitimate

A. According to Article 7(7) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, a person with authority to request a disciplinary decision shall make a disciplinary decision to the disciplinary committee.