1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

3...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following parts are modified, thereby citing this case’s reasoning pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. Once the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, the first to 10 pages 11 are as follows.

Article 2(1) of the instant Disciplinary Reason No. 1 provides that “The Plaintiff shall write out the part on May 18, 2015 in which the Plaintiff intended to move the victim students to the computer room and reflect them,” and “the Plaintiff shall refer seven students from among the victim students on May 21, 2015, and shall refer to whether or not the Plaintiff would select seven children or not, or select 23 children from among the students,” and “the part on which the Plaintiff shall not be readily concluded as the grounds for disciplinary action against the act of injury to the dignity or the teachers’ exercise of teaching rights or disciplinary action against them.”

In the instant case of Paragraph (1) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 1, the part stating that the Plaintiff was punished in a variety of 29 students from among the six-year major students, was based on the result of the survey conducted against the six-year major students from which the Plaintiff was responsible, and the content of such survey alone cannot be seen as the grounds for the disciplinary action, since the Plaintiff’s act, which constitutes the grounds for the disciplinary action, is not specifically specified.

Paragraph (2) of the instant disciplinary cause also requires the content thereof.