1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The defendant's ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined together with the evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance was modified with "No. 2017 No. 76 of the Act No. 3, 4, "Gyeongbuk-do 2017, 76".

Part 3, Paragraph 6 of the same Article shall be construed as "Incompetence", and "Annex 2017, 419" as "Central 2017, 419."

Part 3, Paragraph 10 of the Article 10 states that “The dismissal of the intervenor made by the plaintiff shall be deemed unfair, and the intervenor shall be reinstated to the original position, and the amount equivalent to the wages that the intervenor could have received if the intervenor had worked normally during the period of dismissal shall be paid.”

The 5th parallel 4 to 6th parallels shall be followed as follows:

The Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an investigation into a participant on the basis of various evidentiary materials, such as the statements, text messages, the details of card use, and the response materials, etc. of the relevant persons, including D, etc. The participant made a concrete statement on the contents, method, etc. of the entertainment provided to the golf course business entity. The participant denied the entertainment offered by the intervenor, and the Board of Audit and Inspection recognized only the entertainment recognized by the plaintiff and the amount received by the plaintiff as the subject of reprimand. The Board of Audit and Inspection recognized that only the amount of the entertainment accepted by the plaintiff was the subject of reprimand. 8. 3. 8. 3. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6. 6. 6. 6. 1

Part 11 of Chapter 13 "and the disciplinary cases of AC Vice-head in the previous place".