1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Part IV "A." added to the following:

Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act provides that "All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes and perform their duties in good faith." Such duty of good faith is the most fundamental and important duty of public officials to promote the public interest as well as to prevent disadvantages to the public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu3161, May 23, 1989; 2017Du4772, Nov. 9, 2017; 2017Du472, Nov. 3, 2017)." Following the 6th 8th 8th 199, "in cases of double disciplinary action against public officials, it violates the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy or the principle of prohibition against double punishment, and thus, in order to constitute double disciplinary action, the preceding and subsequent disciplinary action must be deemed to be a disciplinary action in full due to the legal nature, and the same disciplinary action after the preceding disciplinary action shall be deemed to be valid, and the same disciplinary action after the preceding disciplinary action shall be deemed to be a new disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du31690, Jan. 19, 2900.

CHAPTER 7: 18. The following shall be added to the following:

① In particular, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on December 12, 2014 and served as a police officer on May 2, 2017 until the instant disposition was dismissed, but the period of service is not more than two years, as above, during that period.