1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 1993, the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher of the Youngcheon Elementary School, and the Plaintiff was temporarily dismissed from office from office from March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016 pursuant to Article 71 subparagraph 6 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter referred to as “full-time officer”), but is in office as a C elementary school teacher after reinstatement on March 1, 2016.

(Gu) The Plaintiff, as the former Twit D, committed a collective act for purposes other than official duties, such as participating in one time of the war conference (on April 24, 2015) and two times of the Assembly Assembly (on October 29, 2015, December 16, 2015) under the pretext of the public official’s pension dissipation and the nationalization of Korean history textbooks. In addition, around October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was holding the teachers’ temporary declaration of “the opposition to the Korean private textbook government affairs” around 84 U.S., and attending the teachers’ temporary declaration of “the Korean private textbook government affairs” before the KN center, and in violation of the State Public Officials Act, the Plaintiff was notified the Seoul Police Station to initiate an investigation (on November 22, 2015, etc.).

On May 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a reprimand pursuant to Article 78(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 63 (Duty of Good Faith Maintenance), and 66(1) (Prohibition of Collective Action) of the State Public Officials Act to the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(2) The Assembly and Demonstration Act’s “Disposition” refers to “The First and Second Assembly and Demonstration Act” and “The First and Second Assembly and Demonstration Act’s “The First Declaration and Second Assembly and Demonstration Act,” which were held twice or more.

On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 27, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “collective action for a work other than public service” prohibited by the State Public Officials Act, which is prohibited by the absence of grounds for disciplinary action, is neglected to perform his duty of care for a purpose contrary to the public interest.