1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as referred to in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second page No. 11 of the second page “State Public Officials Act” shall be deemed to be “former State Public Officials Act (Amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).”

Part 13 of the Second Twelve is added "for the reason of violation of Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) of the former State Public Officials Act".

Article 78(1)1 of the former State Public Officials Act and Article 78-2 of the former State Public Officials Act shall be added in front of the second fifteenth “Plaintiff”.

Following the fourth chapter “Non-Party 13”, “(The Plaintiff considered golf meetings related to the instant grounds for disciplinary action as a group of friendship with university motive or worship, and could not be anticipated to pay golf expenses from the side of the Company B. Therefore, the instant grounds for disciplinary action do not exist.”

Part 14 through 12 of the 9th page shall be as follows.

Article 61(1) of the former State Public Officials Act provides that no public official may give or receive any reward, donation or entertainment, whether directly or indirectly, in connection with his/her duties. The purport of this provision is to prevent a public official from committing an unlawful act in connection with his/her duties, rather than to prevent a public official from committing an official’s act of receiving or receiving money or goods in relation to his/her duties, and to protect the integrity of the public official’s act of receiving or receiving money or goods, and ensure the appropriateness of the public official’s performance of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du11813, Nov. 12, 2004).