1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include the part resulting from the participation in the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "the head of the team in charge, the head of the personnel team, and the head of the regular business with the approval of the executive director" in Section 6, Section 10, Section 10 of the first instance court's decision; "the person in charge of the team, the head of the personnel team, and the head of the regular business shall obtain the approval of the executive director"; "the existence of the grounds for the disciplinary action" in Sections 9 and 15 shall be added to "the existence of the grounds for the disciplinary action"; "the appropriateness of the disciplinary action" in Chapter 9, Section 19, Section 19, Section 19 and Section 9, Section 3) shall be deemed to be "the appropriateness of the disciplinary action"; "the grounds for the disciplinary action" in Section 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance court.

【A) The Intervenor asserts that “The decision to dismiss the Intervenor’s disciplinary action without the procedure of confirming the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action by means of the replacement with the victim of the instant case in the personnel committee proceeding on July 18, 2013 is against Article 27(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and thus, the dismissal of the instant case is unfair.”

Article 27(2) of the Plaintiff’s Punishment Regulations provides that “The personnel committee shall give the person to be disciplined an opportunity to make a statement, and in this case, shall issue a written notice of attendance (attached Form 5) to the person to be disciplined: Provided, That if the person to be disciplined refuses to comply with the request for attendance without any justifiable reason, it may be presented without the statement of the person to be disciplined,” and Article 27(3) of the same Act provides that “When the personnel committee deems it necessary, it may re-examine facts or have the person to be disciplined attend and make a statement of his/her opinion, and may request expert to make an appraisal.” The Plaintiff shall have the personnel committee for the Intervenor on July 18, 2013.