1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a state public official appointed as an administrative secretary on June 12, 1995. From July 18, 2016 to February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff served as a Grade V administrative official belonging to the Gyeonggi Employment and Labor Agency B employment center of the Jung-gu Ministry of Employment and Labor (hereinafter “B employment center”).

B. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant requested the Central Disciplinary Committee to take a minor disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the following misconducts, and the Central Disciplinary Committee decided to take a disciplinary measure for two months of suspension from office pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

On December 26, 2016, at around 19:30 on December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff attended the business staff team conference held in a restaurant near the Bemployment Center and provided alcohol to the employees and went to a nearby singing room.

At around 21:30, the Plaintiff saw that the employees were seated in the table of the table so that they can sing on the right side of the company support team personnel C, and attempted to let C go to the suckbucks, while making the company support team personnel C, and C tried to get C to go to the sucks, and C tried not to use it.

Females D, who observed the foregoing two people, her hand, her knife from the Plaintiff, and her knife from the Plaintiff, but was not put up for power, her remaining staff E and F and the Plaintiff were put up in both sides, and her knife C.

C. Accordingly, on July 10, 2017, the Defendant was subject to a two-month suspension from office against the Plaintiff.

The disposition of this case is referred to as the "disposition of this case"

1) 【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 4, 5 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Central Disciplinary Committee of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not follow the Defendant’s minor disciplinary opinion and decided a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for two months of suspension from office, without clear provision that the Plaintiff may make a disciplinary decision.