1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part written by the court as follows. Thus, this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 5, 18 of the judgment "(Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 160, 2014 High 413 (Joint) and 812 (Joint))" was pronounced "(Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Gohap160, 2014 High Gohap413 (Joint) and 812 (Joint)). The prosecutor appealed against it, but the Seoul High Court sentenced the prosecutor's appeal against the plaintiff on February 3, 2016 (Seoul High Court 2015No548). The prosecutor appealed again, but the Supreme Court sentenced the prosecutor's appeal against the plaintiff on June 8, 2017 (Supreme Court 2016Do3411). It was so decided that the acquittal judgment against the plaintiff was final and conclusive."

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The grounds for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the part added as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 6, No. 1 to No. 79). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited

The following parts shall be added between the 7th page 9 and the 9th page.

In addition, even if Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration No. 91, Sept. 2, 2014; hereinafter the same) is a discretionary mitigation provision, the defendant's failure to take public mitigation against the plaintiff in light of the purport of the above provision, the number and contents of the plaintiff's public service is abuse of discretion

B. Article 8(2) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, given that the reasoning for this part of the relevant statutes is as stated in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance.