1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal, addition, or deletion of the following among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

9 pages 18 "Recognizing the fact that the inner side of the arms is added, the fact that the upper part of the arms is added," shall be deemed to read "free of dispute concerning the fact that the inside part of the arms is added."

The 10th 17th 18th Myeon 17 and 18 second Myeon 18 shall be two times.

12.On the 10th page, the following shall be added:

“(4) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor dismissed the Defendant on the ground of the initial sexual assault No. 1 misconduct in the instant case, but the Defendant arbitrarily changed and recognized the instant wrongful act that constitutes sexual harassment other than sexual assault. The Defendant asserts to the effect that this does not merely change the legal evaluation of the facts, but it does not mean that it did not constitute a different assessment on the facts, but it did not constitute an unfair impact on the essential elements for which legitimate disciplinary action has been taken, such as the application of the criteria for disciplinary decision and disciplinary action, decision on disciplinary action, and guarantee of the person suspected of disciplinary action, etc.

However, the first misconduct in this case is basically a violation of the duty to maintain dignity as a teacher on the premise that the plaintiff's act was committed against female students' side and side and side sides, etc., and the grounds for the dismissal of the defendant as the defendant did not differ. The defendant's first misconduct in this case is merely a ground for the dismissal of the defendant as the first misconduct in this case or a ground for the dismissal of the defendant as a sexual harassment within the scope that is recognized as identical to the basic facts. This is merely a ground for the dismissal of the defendant as the first misconduct in this case.