The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 27(4) of the Constitution provides that a criminal defendant shall be presumed innocent until a judgment of conviction becomes final and conclusive.

On the other hand, Article 30 of the Foreign Service Officials Act and Article 73-3(1)4 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 13618, Dec. 24, 2015; hereinafter “State Public Officials Act”) aim to prevent the removal from position in advance, on the grounds that if a public official who was subject to criminal prosecution continues to hold a position and perform his/her duties at the stage before he/she becomes retired ipso facto after obtaining a final and conclusive judgment of conviction, there is a risk of undermining the fairness of performing public duties and the public’s trust.

Therefore, in light of the principle of presumption of innocence under the Constitution or the purpose of the above removal from position system, removal from position cannot be justified solely on the ground that the case was prosecuted for a criminal case, and the determination of illegality should be made by taking into account specific circumstances such as whether the party is highly probable to have conviction falling under subparagraphs 3 through 6-2 of Article 3 of the State Public Officials Act, which is a reason for ipso facto retirement, and whether the party’s continuous performance of duties causes danger to fair performance of official

(See Supreme Court Decisions 98Du15412 delivered on September 17, 199, 2006Da30730 delivered on June 26, 2008, etc.). 2. The lower court, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, is highly probable that the Plaintiff is convicted of any conviction falling under subparagraphs 3 through 6-2 of Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act, which is the reason for ipso facto retirement, as to the facts charged by the Plaintiff at the time of removal from office of January 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

In addition, it is difficult to recognize that there was a specific risk that the plaintiff could undermine the fairness of the performance of official duties and the trust of the people.