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 December 24, 1990, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office, and was promoted to the Prosecutor’s Office on June 1, 1993, the Assistant Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office on June 11, 1999, and May 3, 2004. From May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office within the Suwon Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant branch office”) and was assigned to the Prosecutor’s Office on May 15, 2013.

B. On June 26, 2013, the Prosecutor General dismissed the Plaintiff for the following reasons.

At around 12:00 on May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) provided meals at the restaurant of “G” located around the instant branch office, such as Grade D, E, Grade F, and C, which serve in the same department in order to commemorate the lives of prosecution reporters who work for the execution and the executive preservation department of the instant branch office; (b) divided the three-five soldiers of the relevant branch office into three-five soldiers of the instant branch office; (c) returned to the instant branch office at around 14:30 on the same day; and (d) retired from the workplace without justifiable grounds; and (e) around May 7, 2013:40 on the corridor of the instant branch office in front of the enforcement and preservation office of the enforcement department; and (e) instructed the executive director of the instant branch office to keep the face of the Plaintiff-owned eu (Grade 5) in personal inside the enforcement department of the instant branch office; and (e) ordered that the face of the Plaintiff-owner of the instant branch office be kept at the face of the instant one week.

C. On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the appeals review committee, and the said appeals review committee rendered a decision to the effect that “the above dismissal disposition is modified by force, etc., on the ground that it is somewhat excessive.”

Accordingly, on October 15, 2013, the defendant changed the above dismissal disposition by demotion.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff.