1. The Defendant’s disposition of salary reduction for one month, which the Plaintiff rendered on September 5, 2017, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant, on September 5, 2017, suspended the Plaintiff from office for one month on the ground that the Plaintiff’s following acts violate Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 59 (Duty of Kindness and Impartiality), and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

1. At around 10:00 to 11:00 on December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, with respect to B, attended a meeting as a friendly relationship with the victim’s father while not a member commissioned to the Autonomous Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) but does not have the right to participate in the meeting. In particular, the Plaintiff participated in the meeting by leading the meeting, such as opposing the participation of the aggressor student’s defense counsel, and participated in the resolution.

As a result, although "a written apology against victim student" was disposed of, the perpetrator raised a civil lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the disciplinary action against the perpetrator, and the court ruled that there is procedural defect due to the plaintiff's improper response, and tried in the judgment against B.

2. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff, at the request of the principal, participated in a private meeting for reconciliation and agreement between the victim and the parents of the perpetrator’s parents (hereinafter “instant meeting”) on November 22, 2015, with respect to the case of sexual sludges and urines of the students in the fifth grade of C Elementary School in the D Elementary School, which belongs to the D Elementary School Office of Education (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

The Plaintiff discussed the measures with the parents of students on the part of the perpetrator prior to the commencement of the meeting, and asked them to be suspected of fairness, such as meeting separate from the gathering of a specific perpetrator. During the meeting, the Plaintiff told the victim’s guardian to pay monetary compensation as if the victim’s guardian were imprupted. Although the agreement between parents was reached, the Plaintiff failed to reach an agreement with the principal and made a defense against the principal.

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee.