1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. 제1심판결의 인용 이 법원의 판결 이유는 제1심판결 이유 중 각 “이 법원”을 각 “서울행정법원”으로, 제4쪽 제3행의 “�용”을 “적용”으로, 제5쪽 제5행의 “원징계의결읜”을 “원징계의결의”로 제8쪽 제15행의 “문제메시지”를 “문자메시지”로 각 고치고, 제3의 가.

2) paragraphs 3-b.4), 3-c.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Article 3-1 of the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the appeal is dismissed.

2) On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion whether the Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s right to make a statement and right to defense during the witness examination procedure by the Disciplinary Committee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do327, Apr. 2, 2014) was unable to exercise the right to examine the witness I as requested by the Plaintiff in relation to the grounds for the instant disciplinary action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

B) The judgment (Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the NIS provides that “A person subject to disciplinary action may submit data favorable to him/her or apply for a witness.” Article 11(3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials provides that “A person suspected of disciplinary action, etc. may apply for the examination of a witness. In this case, the Committee shall decide whether to adopt a witness.”

As above, the relevant laws stipulate that a person to be disciplined shall be given an opportunity to make a sufficient statement in the procedures for deliberation of disciplinary action, but do not explicitly stipulate that the right to make a statement should be granted to the person to be disciplined during the course of investigation into the grounds for disciplinary action. Thus, the method and contents of witness examination shall also be

Therefore, in order to confirm the facts of the suspicion of disciplinary action, the suspect is the suspect.