1. The Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on January 13, 2015 is revoked.

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

Details of the disposition

On May 12, 200, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Assistant General of the Prosecutor’s Office, and was promoted to the Assistant General of the Prosecutor’s Office on March 31, 2003 and June 9, 2008, respectively, and began to serve in B at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office from December 6, 2010.

At the time of work at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office B, the Plaintiff obtained a profit margin of KRW 3.7 billion by hearing information on investment in shares from D, which is a legal assistant to C, and investing in shares. In addition, the Plaintiff traded shares for the purpose of obtaining profit margins during working hours.

On December 9, 2014, the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office requested a disciplinary resolution by taking the above actions of the Plaintiff as grounds for disciplinary action. On December 30, 2014, the Seoul High Prosecutor's General Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff. On January 9, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was dismissed on the 13th day of the same month (hereinafter "instant disposition").

Specific grounds for disciplinary action are as follows. A.

On December 2, 2010, the Plaintiff became aware of the reporters of a press organization, etc., who had been working at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office B, in order to collect various kinds of crimes and trend information while working at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office B, and maintained the relationship, such as making a series of conversations every day for mutual information exchange.

Around March 2012, the Plaintiff had contact with E Co., Ltd. (E regardless of whether it was before or after the change of the name; hereinafter referred to as “E”). From the said D reporter, the Plaintiff sought the horses that “The E is highly likely to make an investment in either side of E, regardless of whether the E technology is outstanding or not,” and requested the analysis of the categories of E, which is the high school line from the D reporter and the fund manager, respectively.

- After that, the plaintiff contacts E by the Damio Research Institute.