1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the

(2) The court of first instance and the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was examined in both the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and this court, did not differ significantly from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance.

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely did not appropriate research funds for the instant task as a systematic decision-making, but did not properly manage and supervise the research staff’s use of research funds for purposes other than the purpose of research. 2) Article 44(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Guidelines for Common Operation of Projects for Innovation of Industrial Technology (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Notice No. 2016-228) of the former Guidelines for Public Operation of Projects for Innovation of Industrial Technology (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Notice No. 2016-228) provides that “where the amount used by a responsible agency for any purpose other than the purpose of use exceeds 30% of the project funds for the relevant year by the responsible agency” (hereinafter “in

In light of the reflective results, the period of restriction on participation in the instant case was revised from “5 years” to “5 years”, and the Defendant rendered the instant disposition by abusing and abusing discretion by applying the internal guidelines of the instant case, without considering all specific circumstances, even if the provision is more favorable to the person in question.

B. We examine the Plaintiff’s assertion in order.

1. Sanctions against violations of administrative laws are based on the objective facts of violations of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative objectives.