1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasons for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] From the end of Section 8, Section 16 and Section 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance until the end of Section 8, the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute “cases where the Plaintiff’s act does not interfere with the public” solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was issued 78 career certificates that included the aforementioned false career report while re-employmenting. Ultimately, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have sufficiently taken into account the circumstances that meet the above requirements for mitigation, and there is no other evidence to deem otherwise. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not apply the guidelines of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (see Section 12) to exclude the application of “cases where it does not harm the public” among the instant directives, so such Defendant’s measure is justifiable. However, the above guidelines are contrary to the former Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act and the instant directives, and thus, cannot be deemed to have properly exercised its discretionary power solely on the ground that the Defendant knew the above guidelines.”

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.