1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the instant case cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications, and thus, citing the reasoning of this judgment pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. The revised part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the 14th three (c) amendment, shall be as follows:

C. Determination of dismissal is justifiable in cases where there are grounds for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued by social norms. Whether the employee’s employment relationship with the employee can not continue by social norms ought to be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, workplace conditions, status and duty of the employee in question, motive and circumstance of the act of misconduct, influence on the company’s business order, such as the risk of disturbing the company’s deceptive order, and past work attitude.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10149 Decided October 12, 2007). In addition, even if a disciplinary measure is imposed upon a person subject to disciplinary action due to grounds for disciplinary action, a certain measure is left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, and the method of determining a disciplinary measure is, in principle, at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, determined a disciplinary measure among the several persons who were deemed to be a person subject to disciplinary action, there is no difference between the person who committed the same degree of misconduct and the nature of his/her duties, whether he/she has committed a disciplinary action or not, and thus, discriminatory treatment is in violation of the principle of equality or the principle of equity.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du10573, Feb. 22, 2007). However, the Intervenor’s misconduct, which is known in the facts acknowledged earlier, and such misconduct.