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 served as a regional educational administrative officer of the Jeonnam-do Office of Education from July 1, 2012 to B elementary school administrative office.

B. Upon the resolution of the personnel committee of local public officials of the Jeonnam-do Office of Education, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act on June 1, 2015 and Article 2 (1) of the former Southern-do Office of Education Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 700 of the former Education Rules, Jun. 12, 2015) on the ground that “The Plaintiff installed a small digital tape recorder on the soft unit inside the administrative office of B elementary school and recorded the conversations among others (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

C. On January 25, 2016, the appeals review committee of the Jeonnam-do Office of Education filed a petition review with the appeals review committee of the Jeonnam-do Office of Education. On January 25, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to change the dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff to the demotion

(hereinafter the Defendant’s disciplinary action is mitigated (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was prosecuted as charged with the violation of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets (Violation of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets). On February 10, 2015, the first instance court convicted the Plaintiff of the facts charged, and sentenced the Plaintiff to a suspended sentence of one year and a suspension of qualification for six months, and sentenced the Plaintiff to a suspended sentence of one year and a suspension of qualification for six months. On November 26, 2015, the second instance court [Maju High Court 2015No156, 418 (merged)] reversed the first instance judgment of the Plaintiff on November 26, 2015, and sentenced the Plaintiff to a suspended sentence of six months and one year of qualification suspension.

(hereinafter referred to as “this case’s criminal judgment”). 【No dispute exists concerning the instant criminal judgment (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is open to the public as the head of the administrative office to handle the meeting of the steering committee.