1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was appointed as a local fire assistant on February 28, 1990, and on August 4, 2005, the plaintiff was promoted as a local fire assistant and served in Gyeong-nam fire assistant B.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a criminal judgment of a fine of KRW 10 million for the following criminal facts.

(C) The head of Changwon District Court No. 1059, Changwon District Court No. 2017No2027, Oct. 27, 2017; and the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive on Oct. 27, 2017). He/she keeps approximately 69g of marijuana over six occasions from Oct. 9, 2016 to Mar. 31, 2017, for smoking.

C. On July 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure for dismissal pursuant to Article 69(1)3 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fire Officials Disciplinary Decree, Article 9(1) and subparagraph 7(e) of attached Table 1 regarding a disciplinary measure against fire officials (hereinafter “instant measure”). D.

On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Standing Committee on Appeals against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on September 28, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 5, 6, 9, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure of reprimand on April 26, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of this case on the ground of interference with business, and the Defendant was subject to the disposition of this case on May 26, 2016, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of this case, and was subject to a non-prosecution of the charge of interference with business on May 26, 2016, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of this case on the ground that he was under the disposition of this case, and was subject to a non-prosecution of the charge of interference with business on the ground that there was no previous conviction related to narcotics and received a large number of official commendation while serving as a fire-fighting official. Therefore, the disposition of this case that deemed the causes of aggravation of the above circumstances is unlawful.

(b).