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 lower court’s acceptance of the first instance judgment is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act with regard to the assertion that the Plaintiff is particularly emphasized by this court, and thus, the same shall be cited as it is in accordance with

2. The portion added by this court

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's personnel committee did not fully review the plaintiff's public matters and did not comply with the disciplinary procedure under the law. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was erroneous in failing to comply with the disciplinary procedure under the law.

However, according to the evidence No. 4, the defendant submitted a disciplinary procedure to the personnel committee along with the "written confirmation" stating the plaintiff's official matters, etc. in accordance with the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, and the defendant's personnel committee confirmed the plaintiff's official matters through the data on the agenda, such as "written confirmation" and "Personnel Record Card". Thus, the defendant's personnel committee sufficiently reviewed the plaintiff's official matters as disciplinary materials and decided the disciplinary action against the plaintiff after deliberation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the removal and removal are different in terms of the degree of restriction on the payment of pension, but it is not possible to regard the same as the level of disciplinary action. However, the Defendant did not distinguish it and caused confusion with the effect of the instant disposition.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 8 and the whole argument, it is clear that the defendant has decided to dismiss the plaintiff by considering the seriousness of the misconduct in this case, the use of the acquisition fund, the social strike, and the contents of the resolution of the personnel committee. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant caused confusion with the removal and dismissal of the plaintiff and reached the disposition in this case.