1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff served in Han River Business Headquarters B from January 23, 2015 to March 17, 2016.

B. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of reduction of salary for one month to the Plaintiff based on Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act for the following reasons.

1. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) from around 18:40 to 19:50, at the cafeteria “D” restaurant located in C, five employees, including the Han River Business Headquarters B division; and (b) the civil petitioner Party E was consulted with each other.

2. From 20:10 to 21:00 on the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 50,000 in cash from E under the pretext of “breging and breging breging b and its employees, along with the Han River Business Headquarters B and its employees.”

3. The Plaintiff’s act violates Article 53 (Duty of Integrity) of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 12 (Prohibition of Acceptance of Money and Valuables) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Appeals Commission, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Appeals Commission made a decision on March 17, 2016 to change the disposition of reduction of salary for one month as a reprimand.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), . [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s meal and beer’s price that the Plaintiff received from E constitutes “food not exceeding 30,000 won per person, which is openly provided for the performance of a duty smoothly,” which is permitted under the proviso of Article 12(1)2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Code of Conduct for Public Officials, and thus, did not violate the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Officials’ Code of Conduct.

B) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received or received a disciplinary decision, inasmuch as he did not know at all that he would put 50,000 won in the back of his pocket book.