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

A. The reasoning for this Court is as follows.

Except for the addition of the contents as stated in paragraph (1), it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

B. The following shall be added to 4 pages 10 of the judgment of the first instance.

“(A) Even if the grounds for the disciplinary action against dismissal of the instant case are recognized, examining the following: (a) the details of the spread of the instant false accusation recognized by the first instance court and the evidence adopted by the court; (b) the extent of the Plaintiff’s participation; and (c) the place and specific attitudes of the Plaintiff’s misconduct alone, it is deemed difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was liable to the extent that the Plaintiff could not continue to engage in the employment contract under social norms. The Plaintiff’s act is not a person who created the instant false accusation, but a person who participated in the hearing and distribution. The Plaintiff’s act appears to have occurred in the process of expressing decentralization in a contingent manner without properly verifying the authenticity immediately after the Plaintiff’s false accusation was duly verified. Examining the scope of the Plaintiff’s false accusation, the Plaintiff did not have any objective information on the Intervenor’s act of expressing the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s labor and the Plaintiff’s son, K, and L, which were ordinarily related to the Plaintiff’s relationship with the Plaintiff. According to this, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff did not have any objective information on the part of the Plaintiff’s employees.