1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The basic facts and the reasons why the plaintiff's assertion in this part is explained by the court of first instance, and the reasons why the court should explain the above part are as follows: the "to make a protruding speech" under Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and the "agency" under Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "competent authority" is deemed to be the "competent authority", and therefore, they are cited in accordance with

2. First, we examine whether there is any substantive defect, such as whether there is a reason for the disciplinary action in this case.

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s ground for disciplinary action of this case provides for specific grounds for disciplinary action under subparagraphs 1 through 14 of Article 58 of the Regulations on Personnel Affairs pursuant to Articles 39 and 43 of the Articles of Incorporation.

The instant disposition did not specify whether the Plaintiff’s speech and behavior on February 16, 2012 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s speech and behavior”) falls under any item of Article 39 of the Articles of Incorporation or Article 58 of the Regulations on Personnel Affairs. However, in light of the developments leading up to the instant disposition and the reasons for the Central Disciplinary Committee and the Appeal Deliberative Committee’s resolution, etc., it appears that the Plaintiff’s speech and behavior constituted “refiscing the Defendant’s reputation” under Article 39 of the Articles of Incorporation, “refising the Defendant’s reputation” under Article 58 subparag. 2 of the Regulations on Personnel Affairs, and “other acts corresponding to each of the preceding subparagraphs” under Article 14 of the Regulations on Personnel Affairs.

In addition, the instant disposition is deemed a cause of disciplinary action that damages the honor and self-existence of the Defendant Chairperson. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant Chairperson’s honor and self-existence is a cause of disciplinary action under the above Articles of Incorporation and the Personnel Service Regulations.

In addition, the defendant's speech and behavior violated Article 58 (4) of the Personnel Service Regulations, such as "a violation of discipline, such as drinking, unauthorized escape, gambling, etc. during working hours," and subparagraph 8 of Article 58, "a violation of the laws and subordinate statutes, such as "a violation of the order of his superior without justifiable grounds," or "a violation of the law."