1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. As to the preparation of a false official document and the uttering of a false official document, the court acquitted the Plaintiffs on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that E conspired with the Plaintiffs by preparing a false written resolution, etc.

On February 8, 2017, the appellate court was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment (Seoul District Court 2016No4109). However, the appellate court rendered a judgment not guilty of the abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights.

The above judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on May 17, 2017.

(B) On October 8, 2015, the Defendant of the instant disciplinary action was the Chairperson of the Daranam Provincial Personnel Committee for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

Based on the grounds that the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs was demanded. The plaintiffs (Violation of the duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act) prepared the work performance rating table for the public officials belonging to the D military administration division of D military administration and prepared the work performance rating table for each of the following reasons: (i) (ii) the first half of 2012, (iii) the first half of 2013, (iv) the second half of 2014, (v) the first half of 2014, (v) the second half of 2014, and (v) the second half of 2014, without reporting to the head of the Do governor who is the person who is a work performance rating and who is confirmed, at his own discretion without reporting the results of work performance rating (v)" and (v) the priority review of the list of candidates for promotion; and (v) again prepared the list and work performance rating list for each of the above public officials belonging to D military administration; and (v) prepared the disciplinary reasons for each of the above cases 219Do 15.

Accordingly, on December 2, 2015, the defendant issued a two-month suspension disposition against the plaintiffs.

Each disposition of this case is referred to as "each disposition of this case"

(A) (Evidence A. 2.3.