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. Even if the evidence presented in the first instance court and the first instance court were to be comprehensively examined, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was abused or abused from discretionary power is dismissed, and the fact-finding and determination of the first instance court recognizing the legality of the instant disposition are justifiable.

Therefore, the reasoning for this case is that the court’s reasoning is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that it abused or abused discretionary power as evidence added to the trial court, and rejected the statement of evidence Nos. 17, 18, 21 through 25, 29, and 30 (including the serial number). The Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial court is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In conducting the instant on-site investigation, the Defendant did not go through the prior notification procedure despite having to give prior notice to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 17 of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, and the Plaintiff’s employees who could not at all expect the on-site investigation were forced to make a statement in a strong atmosphere. 2) In fact, it has the character of compulsory investigation in that it may lead to a criminal disposition in the future, but the Defendant unilaterally forced the person subject to investigation to make a statement without notifying the person subject to investigation of the right to refuse to make a statement or to appoint a defense counsel or

3) In the instant field investigation, the above-mentioned serious defects exist, and thus, the instant disposition is also unlawful. (B) According to Article 17(1) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, the head of an administrative agency who intends to conduct an administrative investigation shall conduct an on-site inspection, including the purpose, scope and contents of the investigation, and materials to be submitted.