1. The Defendant’s disposition of removal against the Plaintiff on March 20, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 23, 1996, the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official of Grade VII at C Public Health Clinics located in New-gun B, 1996, and worked at the Ha Chang Chang-gun D Public Health Care Center from February 19, 2003 to August 9, 2007, from August 10, 2007 to August 12, 2010, from the Net Chang-gun Health Care Center E Public Health Care Center, from August 13, 2010 to January 12, 2013, from the Net Chang-gun Public Health Care Center at the F Public Health Care Center of Korea from August 13, 201 to the end of January 13, 2013, and from January 13, 2013, the Plaintiff has worked in G and H Counseling Center.

B. On March 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 48 and Article 69 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 2 of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, and Article 2 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials and Appeal Regulations, and Article 2 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials and Appeal Regulations, and Article 2 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Net-gun Local Public Officials, on the ground that “When the Plaintiff is employed as the Director General of the Health and Medical Service and is in charge of the disbursement and receipt of the Fund of the above Medical Service, he/she used 10,202,240 won over 185 times from March 21, 2009 to July 25, 2010.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the said claim on August 30, 2013.

On the other hand, on June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7,000,000 for an offense of occupational embezzlement, which includes the foregoing disciplinary cause, from the Southern District Court Branch of the Jeonju District Court (No. 2013Ma84), and both the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed, but all appeals were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court upon dismissal of the appeal.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is against the Plaintiff’s depth by recognizing all the grounds of the instant disposition. Since the Plaintiff fully repaid the amount embezzled by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff.