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 judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

[Supplementary Judgment] The plaintiff asserts that the disposition in this case is an abuse of the right to discretion of disciplinary action in light of the fact that the dismissal disposition in the trial is unfavorable to the plaintiff in the future period of restriction on taking public office and retirement allowances, etc. compared to the dismissal disposition.

According to the evidence adopted by the first instance court as cited earlier, the following circumstances are recognized:

The plaintiff has committed a wrongful act of abandoning approximately 705 copies of postal items (including 10 copies of general correspondence and 20 copies of the National Tax Service) that should be delivered without lapse of six months after being appointed as a postal service official, in the river area located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 Dong, Dobong-gu.

It is very high possibility of criticism against the plaintiff in that the amount of abandoned mail is large, and the misconduct was committed intentionally.

This is not only a serious misconduct that has to be delivered safely and accurately to the people as a member of the House, but also a serious crime that is subject to criminal punishment.

The abandoned mail was found by a citizen who passed after the following day.

The people's trust expected to provide prompt and appropriate postal services by the plaintiff's act has been fundamentally damaged.

In addition, strict enforcement of the law is required to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the future, and the other cases asserted by the Plaintiff are different in detail from this case, and thus, it is difficult to deem the disposition of this case to be in violation of equity, as well as the content and nature of the facts of suspicion of disciplinary action causing the disposition of this case.