The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 춘성군 지방행정주사 (부면장)로 근무하던 원고가 (1) 1982.12. 중순경 18:00부터 다음날 04:30까지 소외 1의 집에서 소외 2, 3, 4, 5 등과 함께 화투로 3점에 500원, 2점이 추가될 때마다 500원이 더붙는 이른바 " 고스톱" 이라는 도박을 하고, (2) 1983.1. 중순경 19:00부터 다음날 04:30까지 위 (1)항과 같은 장소에서 같은 사람들과 같은 방법으로 도박을 하고, (3) 1983.2.3 09:00경부터 그다음날 05:00까지 춘천여관 2층에서 위 사람들 및 소외 6 등과 함께 한번에 10,000원에서 30,000원까지의 도금을 놓고 화투 20장으로 하는 이른바 " 도리짓고땡" 이라는 도박을 하여 1,500,000원(현금으로 900,000원)을 땄다가 소외 2, 3이 많은 돈을 잃었다고 하여 5,000원만 갖고 나머지를 두고 나온 사실과, 위와 같은 도박행위에 대하여 상습도박죄로 기소가 되었다가 1983.11.2 춘천지방법원에서 단순도박죄로 인정되어 벌금 1,000,000원의 형을 선고받은 사실을 적법하게 인정한 후, 위 각 도박행위는 원고 주장사실과 같이 단순한 일시적 오락의 정도에 불과한 것으로 볼 수 없다고 판단하고 있다.

The decision of the court below to the purport that it is difficult to view the plaintiff's act of gambling as a temporary entertainment in light of such various circumstances as the time and place of gambling, degree of value of property in gambling, social status of the persons who participated in gambling, degree of property, purpose of use of gains from gambling, etc. The decision of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, since it is difficult to regard the plaintiff's act of gambling as a temporary entertainment merely because it is merely a temporary entertainment.

In particular, the author argues to the effect that the Plaintiff 5,00 won out of the remote money in the gambling act mentioned in the above (3) is obvious that he did not have an intention to revert to himself the profit gained from such act at the time of gambling, and it is merely a temporary entertainment in light of the purpose of this benefit. However, considering the contents of evidence employed by the court below according to the records, the Plaintiff can take into account the circumstances where the Plaintiff, as alleged in the record, most of the cash was inevitably made out from the remote money due to the demand of Nonparty 1 who lost a large amount of money, not from the beginning, who did not have an intention to possess the profit arising from gambling, but from the demand of Nonparty 1, who lost a large amount of money. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not have an intention to hold the profit at the time of gambling with only the fact that only 5

Ultimately, there is no doubt that the judgment of the court below contains any violation of the rules of evidence and any mistake of fact in the fact-finding on the grounds for disciplinary action and disciplinary level.

2. The only issue is that there was an error that did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary procedure against the plaintiff. However, according to the records, prior to holding a meeting for resolution on October 4, 1983, the Chuncheon personnel committee notified the plaintiff in writing to attend the meeting, and accordingly, the plaintiff was given a sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the judgment below is just in holding that there was no illegality in the disciplinary procedure. The court below did not determine that the existence of the statement prepared and submitted by the plaintiff as 9.22, as alleged in the lawsuit, is not given an opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the court below is not justified in holding that the error in the disciplinary procedure was erroneous.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)