1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as an administrative assistant on February 7, 2007. From February 27, 2015 to February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff is performing the duties of fair safety management, etc. at the Defendant-affiliated Center.

B. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant Ordinary Disciplinary Committee decided on January 1, 201 pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the following disciplinary facts against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary grounds”) constituted a violation of the duty to maintain dignity, and the Defendant took the same disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on January 19, 2016.

On October 20, 2015, from around 19:30 to 20:00, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “I will die or die if I would die if I would do not hear the ship’s horse,” at the same restaurant to the effect that D’s “I will die” from around 20:40 on the same day to around 21:00 on the ground that D’s public officials affiliated with the same department made a statement to the effect that “I would die if I would die and die?” and that D’s scam to the effect that D’s scam to the effect that I would drink or scam from the stairs that I would die at the same time.”

C. On June 1, 2016, the appeals review committee changed the Defendant’s salary reduction disposition on January 19, 2016 to reprimand.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists over a disciplinary measure remaining after reduction of reprimands . / [Grounds for recognition], entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s claim to singing out is not an act of impairing the public official’s dignity, but only an act of defending D’s unilateral assault.

Even if the Plaintiff and D’s case on October 20, 2010 were to be recognized as a mutual assault, the Defendant’s reduction in salary for one month to the Plaintiff.