1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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 modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be corrected or added;

A. It is reasonable to view that “the degree of non-defensiveness is severe and gross negligence” in Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance falls under “the case where the degree of non-defensiveness is severe and gross negligence” or “the case where the degree of non-defensiveness is weak and there is an intentional act” in Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance. It is amended

(b) add to the judgment of the first instance court on the following arguments in the front part of “3. Conclusion” in the 8th judgment:

3) In the process of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the Defendant’s only investigation without face-to-face inquiry into E, who is money or valuables, constitutes a defect in the method of investigating disciplinary grounds; and (b) as the written request for disciplinary decision contains “serious disciplinary action”, it is necessary to consider the suspension of duties or demotion at the time of a disciplinary decision; (c) the Plaintiff’s mere consideration of “excluding” of removal and dismissal as requested by an investigator constitutes a defect in the procedure of a disciplinary decision, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant, at the time of audit and inspection, appears to have been issued through a sufficient investigation, such as a face-to-face investigation with respect to the Plaintiff and the J et al., on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant: (b) was unable to conduct a face-to-face investigation because he/she was staying in a foreign country at the time of audit and inspection; (c) there was no provision that he/she should conduct a face-to-face investigation; and (d) the instant disposition caused the instant accident is deemed to have been issued through a face-to-face investigation with respect to the relevant persons, including the Plaintiff and J et