Law Firm Lins et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-han

Litigation performers shall be commercialized;

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Lee Dong-tae

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

The cancellation shall be revoked.

The reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the parts written by the court under Paragraph (2) below. Thus, the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as they are (other grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence presented by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance court's

2. Parts to be dried;

○, the first instance court’s written statement No. 3, 21, “State Public Officials Service Regulations” was amended as “State Public Officials Service Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29012, Jul. 2, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply). If the first instance court’s written statement No. 5, “Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials” was amended as “Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1467, May 30, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply)”. If the first instance court’s written statement No. 8, “No. 6,” written as “No. 15,” written as “No. 6,” written as “No. 9,” written as “No. 6,” written as “No. 9.”.

In addition, "the plaintiff was trusted by the deceased, but it was not able to trust the deceased in terms of the deceased's behavior so far."

According to the records of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11 and 12, the following is added to Gap evidence Nos. 56, 58 of the first instance judgment. The plaintiff requested a medical certificate to the plaintiff at the Ministry of Science and ICT once in the process of approving the number of days of sick leave, and the plaintiff's demand for a medical certificate to his employees is judged to be an appropriate act as a supervisor. However, the Audit Officer of Ministry of Science and ICT, the subject of preparation of each civil petition No. 56, 58 of the above evidence No. 56, cannot be deemed to have any legal meaning in this case as an institution with no relationship with the disposition of this case made by the Prime Minister according to the resolution of the Central Disciplinary Committee under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister. In addition, the above Ministry Audit Office of Science and ICT only decided on the basis of the plaintiff's claim, the applicant for the medical certificate, which was limited to the plaintiff's audit procedure or disciplinary procedure. The judgment that the plaintiff's demand for the medical certificate to the deceased violated the above facts No. 16, No. 3, No. 1, 6. 1, 3.

In addition, the first instance judgment No. 12, No. 7, written “I will see the recording files at the time of the investigation by the Inspector General of the North Korean Regional Administration Office, and I would like to see the victim’s insult.”

The following is added between 12 pages 8 and 9 of the first instance judgment.

D) At the time of the investigation by the Inspector General of the former North Korean Regional Administration, the confirmation document prepared and submitted by the Plaintiff on October 17, 2016 stated that “I confirm that the Plaintiff has exercised speech violence on several occasions to the Deceased during the course of coordinating the collective team,” and there is no evidence to be considered that the said confirmation document was drafted compulsorily against the will of the originator. There is no evidence to support that “each statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 6” in Part 4 of the first instance judgment is written “A No. 3, 6, and No. 9”.

Article 21 of the text of the first instance judgment provides that "the service regulations of State public officials" shall be applied to the competent administrative agency as "the service regulations of State public officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29012, Jul. 2, 2018)". The "Enforcement Regulations of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials on the 22th Round of the first instance judgment (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1467, May 30, 2018)" shall be amended as "the Enforcement Rules of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials."

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young

Judges Lee Jong-hwan