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 stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance added the "Act on the Management of Public Records" (hereinafter "Public Records Act") to the "Act on the Management of Public Records" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the last part of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be able to take the following matters, and the above evaluation statement is not a public record, so the plaintiff's act cannot be deemed a violation of the Public Records Act, and it is not allowed to add the grounds for disposition in violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Operational Rules or the Rules on the Management of Local Public Officials at

Although the Plaintiff’s ground for disciplinary action in violation of the principle of equality 3) is not more severe than D’s misconduct that was stolen and leaked, the Plaintiff’s disposition in this case is in violation of the principle of equality. Thus, the Plaintiff’s ground for disciplinary action is more severe than D’s disciplinary action mitigated for one month. The instant disposition is contrary to the principle of equality. The Plaintiff’s ground for disciplinary action in this case’s 7th sentence of the first instance judgment is added below (the evaluation is within the scope of 100 points, and it is difficult to expect that 3 points are likely to have a critical impact on the selection of transport business operators. As a result, it is difficult to view that F points are included in two additional points, and even if F points are affected by the Plaintiff’s selection of transport business operators, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff proposed the above additional points with the intention of making it favorable from the beginning to the point of view.