1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this Court is as follows.

With the exception of adding the contents of the first instance judgment, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

B. The defendant and the intervenor asserts to the effect that the dismissal of this case constitutes abuse of authority significantly deviating from the authority of disciplinary discretion even if the grounds for disciplinary action are acknowledged in the trial of the party.

In principle, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a worker for the reason for the disciplinary measure, the disciplinary measure is placed at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. Thus, in order to be illegal, the disciplinary measure is limited to cases where the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity under the social norms and thus has abused the discretionary power entrusted to the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. If the disciplinary measure is deemed to be a disposition which has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it shall be deemed that it is objectively and objectively unfair in light of the characteristics of the job, the contents and nature of the reason for the disciplinary measure, the purpose of the disciplinary measure based on

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Intervenor’s dismissal against the Intervenor is clearly unfair under the ordinary social norms, and thus, is considerably unfair, thereby exceeding the scope of the disciplinary discretion. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court and the instant court based on such legal principles and the circumstances cited by the first instance court, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s dismissal against the Intervenor from the Intervenor is considerably unfair under the ordinary social norms, and thus, goes beyond the scope of the disciplinary discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and the intervenor's assertion.