1. The Defendant’s disposition of salary reduction for one month that the Plaintiff rendered on March 27, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 1991, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Gyeonggi-do Local Veterinary Assistant Inspector, and served as the director of the research institute B from February 19, 2013.

B. C, which subsidized the accounting of daily expenses in the North Korean Site of the B Research Institute, voluntarily withdrawn approximately KRW 64,271,000 through four times in total from 2010 to 2013 (based on fiscal year) in order to use the public funds of KRW 64,271,000 for private purposes, and embezzled and misappropriated, and a part of the disbursement resolution, which is an accounting document, was executed without the approval of the treasurer and the divisional accounting officer.

Accordingly, on March 27, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of salary reduction of 1 month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, the director of the branch, was negligent in performing his/her principal duties, such as embezzlement and misappropriation of ordinary expenses, but the Plaintiff, who was the director of the branch, was not aware of them at all,” and thereby disrupted the accounting order.”

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition review on April 25, 2014, but the Gyeonggi-do Appeal Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on June 16, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 14, Eul's evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff could prevent any further irregularities by taking appropriate measures, such as first detection of the plaintiff's misconduct and reporting it to a superior agency and requesting an audit. The reduction disposition against the plaintiff does not accord with equity when compared to the disposition against full-time officers who did not detect C's misconduct. The defendant did not reflect the achievements such as official commendation received by the plaintiff while rendering the disposition in this case, and the disbursement resolution for which the plaintiff's approval was omitted was made during the period in which the plaintiff worked.