1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are all included in the part resulting from participation.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court of first instance to the

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance or supplementation of such judgment as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. From the last day of the 4th to the 5th day of the 5th day of the instruction or supplementation, the term “in this Court” has been written in the presence of a witness of the first instance trial.

Part 6. The following shall be added to the first page:

“12) On September 20, 2019, the Plaintiff was convicted of two years of suspension of execution for eight months due to the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc. committed by the military branch of the Jeonju District Court, that “The Plaintiff embezzled KRW 3 million as of December 18, 2013; KRW 2 million as of November 27, 2015; KRW 280,000 as of July 21, 2016; and KRW 1.3 million as of December 27, 2016 as of December 27, 2016,” which was sentenced to a suspended sentence for eight years.

(2018 Highest 782). The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the appeal was dismissed (the Jeonju District Court 2019No1321), and the appeal to which the appeal was lodged became final and conclusive (Supreme Court 2020Do7813).

The testimony of the witness E in the third place is referred to as “the testimony of the witness E in the first instance trial.” The following is added to the second instance of the second instance “A”, and the “discriminatory treatment on religion” among the grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the instant case does not constitute a justifiable ground for disciplinary dismissal. In this lawsuit, the Defendant asserted that the above grounds do not constitute a justifiable ground for disciplinary dismissal.