The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 51(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act provides that “The head of an educational institution shall, without delay, request the disciplinary committee having jurisdiction over the relevant disciplinary case to make a disciplinary decision if he/she deems that the public educational official under his/her control falls under any cause for disciplinary action under the subparagraphs of Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act.” Article 15 of the former Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29560, Feb. 26, 2019; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “In making a decision on a disciplinary case, the disciplinary committee shall take into account the behavior, performance, public records, details of

Meanwhile, Article 1 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Measures, etc. of Public Educational Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Mar. 18, 2019; hereinafter “former Rules on Disciplinary Measures”) provides that “The purpose of these Rules is to ensure equity in disciplinary action by prescribing the criteria for disciplinary measures and grounds for mitigation, etc. of public educational officials.” Article 2(1) of the same Rules provides that “The Disciplinary Committee shall make a decision on disciplinary measures in accordance with the criteria for disciplinary measures in accordance with the attached Table, in consideration of the type of misconduct, degree of misconduct, degree of misconduct, degree of negligence, seriousness of negligence, work performance, public service, degree of penance, and other circumstances of a discipline accused person.”

Accordingly, the above [Attachment] sets the criteria for disciplinary action according to the degree of misconduct, intentional act, and negligence while classifying the types of misconduct. Of this, with respect to "sexual assault" belonging to "violation of the duty to maintain dignity of 7." among the types of misconduct, "where the degree of misconduct is serious and intentional" and "where the degree of misconduct is severe and gross negligence, or where the degree of misconduct is weak and intentional," "where the degree of misconduct is serious and transitional, or where the degree of misconduct is weak," "in the case of gross negligence", "in the case where the degree of misconduct is serious and transitional, or where the degree of misconduct is weak and gross negligence."