1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The court's explanation about this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form) in addition to the part written by the court of first instance as to this case in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(A) The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in this Court are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the grounds for the disciplinary dismissal in this case are deemed to be the grounds for the disciplinary dismissal in question, but it is justifiable to find facts in the first instance court and make a judgment that the grounds for the disciplinary dismissal in this case are deemed to be excessive, and thus constitutes a disposition which substantially lacks validity under social norms). In addition, the part of the first instance court’s judgment, which was used after the dismissal, “as to the grounds for the disciplinary action 2” as “as to the facts constituting a crime listed in the annexed Table 2

In the first instance judgment, the part 9 of the first instance judgment stating that the phrase “A evidence Nos. 4, A. 29, A. 38, B’s evidence Nos. 6 through 9, and B’s evidence Nos. 16,” and the phrase “I. 8 of the first instance judgment” in the part 10 of the first instance judgment (“I. 4, A. 29, B’s evidence Nos. 6 through 16,” and the phrase “I. 10” in the part 8 of the first instance judgment. In comparison with the average equipment of the head of a nationwide branch office, the Plaintiff argued that the Intervenor used small amount of equipment outside the district under his/her jurisdiction and used a large amount of equipment more than that of the head of the branch office under his/her jurisdiction. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s entire business trip was false only on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s assertion. Moreover, according to the Plaintiff’s bylaws No. 29 or budget operation guidelines, the difference between the branch office and the branch office office office No. 38.