Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Kang Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Lee Hy-sung et al.)

February 27, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition of demotion against the Plaintiff on June 12, 2012 is revoked.

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

The text shall be as shown in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 23, 2008 to July 28, 2010, the Plaintiff performed an energy cooperation diplomatic mission while serving as the Prime Minister’s Diplomatic Policy Officer. From July 29, 2010 to January 26, 2012, the Government Organization Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; however, the name was changed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; however, the name is referred to as the “Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade” regardless of before and after the change of the name; the term “the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade” is referred to as the “Defendant”; the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade performs the duties of assisting the Minister in the internal affairs and negotiations related to energy and resources as the Ambassador of energy resources.

B. Nonparty 1 was a representative director of the CNK bargaining Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CNK bargaining”) and the local government corporation that dealt with the foregoing company’s c&K MINGINGINC SA (hereinafter “C&K”) who carried out the D&K mineral deposit development project in c&K in c&K in c&K around 2009. Nonparty 1 was a listed company on March 25, 201 and changed the company’s trade name from CNKz to C&K personal identification; hereinafter “C&K”), regardless of whether before or after the mutual change was made, he/she was working as the representative director of C&K, who is the C&K, in c&K (hereinafter “C&K”), and was working as the representative director of C&K (hereinafter “C&K”). Nonparty 1, a listed company on March 25, 201, changed the company’s management right from CNK to C&K personal identification.

C. Around November 2008, the Plaintiff received a request from Nonparty 1 to provide support from the Government for the mineral deposit development project within the Republic of Korea, and supported Nonparty 1 to obtain rights to the development of mineral deposits from the Government of the Republic of Korea through various means (specific details will be stated below).

D. On December 16, 2010, the Canadian Government granted C&K mining rights to the D&K mineral deposits (hereinafter “the instant mineral deposits”) located within the Mobul long. On December 16, 2010, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distributed the news report materials (hereinafter “the first news report materials”) informing the above facts following the date. With respect to the said D&K mineral deposits, the said materials are as follows.

The estimated quantity of Yokoum in the area included in the main text is about 4.20 million won at least (the result of the UNDP investigation in 195-97 and the exploration of ○○○ Team in 07) * The annual production of Damond * approximately 1.77 billion per year * (07 years) : about 65% of C&K&M (Kameri) * 35% of the Kameri Government * the term of validity of the development right: 25 years (which can be renewed in 10 years after the expiration of the term).

E. However, thereafter, the media raised various doubts as to the economic feasibility of the instant mineral deposit’s multimond store quantity and mineral deposit development project, and criticism that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade announced the multimond store quantity of the instant mineral deposit through the first news report data by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, thereby causing confusion in the stock market. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distributed the report data again on June 28, 201 (hereinafter “second news report data”) and intended to spread the report data again on June 28, 201. The relevant contents of the report data are as follows.

On December 16, 2010, the Government of Camera announced that it granted C&K mining development rights through Presidential Decree. On December 17, 2010, the news report materials on the acquisition of Kamermond in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade are based on the announcement of the Kameri Government. The Government of the 00 resource holding country confirmed that the method of exploration is appropriate in the course of resource exploration, that there is no falsity or exaggeration in exploration report, nor that there is no violation of local laws and regulations in the course of exploration, and that the Kameri government dealt with the Kameri in the course of exploration.In order to obtain mineral development rights in the Kamera, it is necessary to obtain residents' agreement, environmental impact assessment, approval by competent authorities, consultation on mineral development, and to enter into the Convention on Minerals Development, and that it is necessary for the Government of the Republic of Korea to submit an official report on mineral development rights to the Kameri-K mining industry.

F. However, there was a suspicion that the Damond estimated store volume of the instant mineral deposit continued to be unfilled, and there was a suspicion that the Plaintiff’s friendship and human relatives, who held the shares of the C&K, obtained unfair benefits due to the large share price of the C&K due to the reported materials by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

G. As a result, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted various support activities without undergoing an examination by a relevant specialized agency as to whether the amount of Damond store, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff is appropriate, the Board of Audit and Inspection made use of the government's support activities as a means to resolve the business difficulties of insolvent companies, such as C&K. ② From the first news report materials, the part stating "The amount of Damond's store of the instant mineral deposit is approximately 4.20,000,000 won (the result of UNDP survey in 195 to 97 and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) was false or not verified, which included it in the news report materials, caused confusion in the stock market. Upon raising doubt as to the authenticity of such news report materials, the first news report materials were distributed to the Defendant, which was verified by the government with which the first news report materials were confirmed by the government, and the second news report materials were released by Nonparty 1, the person holding the Plaintiff's’s economic influence of the instant news report materials.

H. On May 18, 2012, the Central Disciplinary Committee decided that the Plaintiff was demoted, etc. on June 12, 2012, based on the following: ① improper implementation of energy cooperation diplomacy for the development of the instant mineral deposit; ② improper management of the preparation and distribution of news report data; ③ improper management of transaction of stocks by job-related persons or relatives and persons, etc. (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”) as grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant cause for disciplinary action”); and the Defendant demoted the Plaintiff on June 12, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

I. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, sought a revocation of the instant disposition to the appeals review committee, but the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on February 27, 2013.

(j) Meanwhile, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office indicted the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff's above act constituted a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, preparation of false official documents, uttering of false official documents, abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da160, 2014 Gohap413, 812 (merged)). However, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment of innocence against the Plaintiff on January 23, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da160,

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 43 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) With respect to the grounds for the disciplinary action No. 1 of this case, the duties of the Plaintiff’s “Energy Resource Ambassador” includes the duties of interview with Korean companies entering Korea and resolving difficulties. Nonparty 1 is a person who had been engaged in business activities by entering Korea, and Nonparty 1 was a representative director, and there are several media reports that Nonparty 1 obtained the exploration right from the government that he had been a representative director, and thus, the Plaintiff’s support for the development activities of the Damond Mineral Deposit was an act within the scope of the Plaintiff’s duties. Furthermore, the support for the development activities of the Damond Mineral Deposit was an act within the scope of the Plaintiff’s duties. Furthermore, since Kameri was a country in which the business of the Republic of Korea was conducted in addition to the mineral deposits of Da&K learning, it cannot be interpreted that the Plaintiff granted excessive preferential treatment to Nonparty 1 while the Republic of Korea provided various support to Kamera.

2) With respect to the grounds for the grounds for the grounds for the disciplinary action of this case No. 2, it cannot be deemed that false facts were included in the report No. 1 and No. 2, and even if there were somewhat inaccurate contents, the Plaintiff knew or could have known of them. In particular, the above report materials were distributed to promote the instant mineral deposits after it became final and conclusive by the C&K’s joint development of the instant mineral deposits, and if the K&K’s internal review and development of the instant mineral deposits were made by the K&K’s internal review, it could be determined that there were grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant mineral deposits. Since the first and second report materials were made on the basis of these grounds, they cannot be deemed that there were errors by the Plaintiff, and during that process, the Plaintiff did not have any unfair pressure beyond the ordinary authority to express opinions, and therefore, the grounds for the disciplinary action of this case No. 2 cannot be the grounds for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

3) The Plaintiff did not transmit the specific details of the C&N mineral deposits to the Plaintiff’s relatives and relatives. Although the Plaintiff’s relatives and relatives sold the shares of C&Nr, they were based on the Plaintiff’s independent judgment, and there were relatives and relatives suffering losses therefrom. The Securities Futures Commission concluded that the Plaintiff’s act of trading shares by the relatives and relatives was not an unfair transaction using undisclosed information. Accordingly, the instant disciplinary cause No. 3 cannot be a legitimate ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

4) As such, the instant disposition is unlawful as it was conducted without a justifiable ground for discipline against the Plaintiff. Even if some grounds for discipline are recognized, the Plaintiff’s misconduct is only based on negligence caused by the Plaintiff’s work process, and thus, it is excessive to make a heavy disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be revoked.

B. Whether the ground for disciplinary action No. 1 of this case exists

1) Facts of recognition

A) Circumstances before the Plaintiff supporting the mineral deposit development project of this case

(1) On April 26, 2006, C&K mining had the right to explore the mineral deposits of this case granted by the Kmergian government on April 26, 2006.

(2) On January 2007, Non-party 3 professors, who belong to ○○○ University, were engaged in investigating the quantity of the instant mineral deposits in accordance with the request of C&K mining. C&K (C&K) entered into an industry-academic cooperation agreement on April 6, 2007 with ○○ University.

(3) Around March 2008, Nonparty 3 published the results of Nonparty 3’s Damond storage volume of the instant mineral deposit, approximately KRW 736 million. The aforementioned results of Nonparty 3’s research were based on the UNDP’s 1982 to 1987 research report on mineral deposit in the area of Mobulon. The said report was based on the 314 Mmond produced by washing about approximately 71 square meters from the gravel gravel, which was 49.5 square meters in total, and the Damond’s Damond’s Damond’s Damond’s Damond 2 was expected to have a Damond’s Damond’s Damond’s Dabuld 36 million. From 1982 to 197, the UN report on the Mabuld’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s 197.

(4) The Ministry of Knowledge Economy around March 2008, when Nonparty 3’s above announcement was made, distributed a report on the discovery of a significant mineral deposit in the Republic of Korea with C&K bargaining (C&K) around March 2008. Around that time, the media also discovered a mineral deposit with C&K bargaining 700 million Won in the Republic of Korea. However, the Republic of Korea Embassy of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea around that time, the Republic of Korea sent three times the full text of the above report to the effect that there is insufficient objective data about the contents of the report and that a careful approach is needed until confirmation of the amount of reserve deposits through the exploration of a specialized institution.

(5) On June 4, 2008, ○ University, to which Nonparty 3 professor belongs, entered into a service agreement on the economic feasibility assessment of the mineral deposit of this case with CNK (Korea) and ○ University paid KRW 10 million to Nonparty 3 professor in relation to the above research service. Nonparty 3 sent e-mail to Nonparty 1 on July 19, 2008, who was conducting the above service task, on October 16, 2008, Nonparty 3 died on the part of Nonparty 1, a technical adviser of CNK ENK (Korea). The above exploration activity was succeeded by Nonparty 11, a technical adviser of CNKM (Korean).

B) Support for the Plaintiff’s C&K side and the process of acquiring the right to develop the mineral deposit of this case

(1) The Government of the Republic of Korea established the third master plan for overseas resources development (2007-2016) and emphasized the importance of enhancing the self-reliance ability of major energy resources, such as petroleum, gas, and six strategic minerals. In order to implement the above master plan, since the establishment of and support for diplomatic relations with countries with abundant resources was important, Korea has re-established the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in Canada on September 2008 and designated the said Embassy as an energy co-operation diplomatic mission. Damond was not included in the six strategic minerals set forth in the above master plan.

(2) Around November 2008, Nonparty 1 requested the Plaintiff to provide support and cooperation at the government level on the development of Damond mineral deposits for the first time.

(3) As seen earlier, Nonparty 1 was the representative director of the CNK bargaining (Korea) and C&K bargaining. All of the above two companies were not listed companies. Nonparty 1 and CNK bargaining (Korea) and its officers and employees were listed on the KOSDAQ market at the time of November 2008, but they acquired part of the shares of the CNKKK and C&K, which had been accumulated as net losses from around 2002, and acquired the right to control CNK through the third party’s capital increase with shares allocated. The above acquisition can be seen as having the same effect as being listed on the KOSDAQ market. The above information was known through the media around November 2008, and C&K and C&K 209, 2009, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 300, 300, 200, 300, 300, 300, 4,00, 3,01.

(4) At the time of January 12, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) sent e-mail to Nonparty 2, an ambassador of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, to the Republic of Korea, and requested the Plaintiff to cooperate in the development of the D&K mining deposits; (b) Nonparty 2, on February 17, 2009, the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the amount of mineral reserves because of the simple basic survey; and (c) Nonparty 3’s announcement of the estimated volume of mineral deposits of this case as 70 million won can be proved by the actual exploration; (d) according to the D&C mineral department, the possibility of success in the exploration and development of rare mineral resources, such as D&L, is extremely low; and (b) Nonparty 3, according to the D&C department, companies engaged in a large and significant amount of extraction efforts to a certain extent at the initial stage; and (b) Nonparty 2, given the answer to the purport that it is one of the following.

(5) C&K mining (C&K) on January 21, 2009, based on the results of Nonparty 3’s exploration, submitted a final exploration report stating that the dymond quantity of the instant mineral deposit is 416,150,236gs, based on the results of Nonparty 3’s exploration. The estimated quantity of samples is measured by means of multiplying the volume of the dymond originals (hereinafter “average dignity”) contained in 1 cubic meters, by the body volume of the dymond originals to which the samples belong. The average dignity of the dymond class of the instant mineral deposit of this case was 0.304 m or metres, the average dignity of the dymond class was 0.340 m or cm. The above final exploration report was written differently from the average dymond total dys of the dymons when calculating the average dys of the dyke layer, but did not separately analyze the dymon-proof.

(6) On March 5, 2009, C&K mining submitted a final report attached to the development plan for the mineral deposits of this case on the basis of the above exploration report to the Kmeri Government on March 5, 2009, and submitted an environmental impact assessment report on April 27, 2009.

(7) From May 2, 2009 to November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff visited African countries as a member of the “Energy Cooperation and Diplomatic delegation,” and was included in the visit countries. At the time, the Plaintiff had an interview with the government-related persons, such as the Minister of the Cameran Mining Department at that time, and carried out support activities for acquiring the right to develop the instant mineral deposit.

(8) On July 2009, the Canadian Government requested for an additional investigation into the "fluoral c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&K's c&D's c&D's c&D's c&

(9) At the time, Nonparty 2 sent a full text to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade on January 7, 2010 to report the progress of the above additional wave work (the above full text was transferred to the Plaintiff as a copy). The above full text is limited to 416,150,236 capitals, which were considered as the estimated quantity of the instant mineral deposit, and the fact that the French Geological Resource Research Institute was investigating the relevant area, but it was not sufficiently verified that it was failed to attract investment due to high exploration costs (However, the Plaintiff asserted that the exploration of the said institute of French Geological Resources did not explore the mineral deposit area of this case, and the Defendant also did not present accurate data.)

(10) At the time, Nonparty 4 requested Nonparty 2 Ambassador of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to report matters related to the development of a multimond mineral deposit development project, the feasibility of the project, and the need for support at the government level in relation to the former part of January 7, 2010. Nonparty 2 sent a full text of the content that contains a positive assessment that the success outlook would be shown if he/she obtains the right of development on February 26, 2010, because it is determined that the project feasibility of the instant mineral deposit is high.

(11) On February 2010, the Plaintiff arranged the place to have Nonparty 1 hold an interview with the Prime Minister’s Vice Minister Nonparty 5 (former Prime Minister). Nonparty 1, as an opportunity, was able to explain the instant mineral deposit development project to Nonparty 5 (former Vice Minister).

(12) As seen earlier, as a result of the implementation of the additional survey on the new c&K c&K c&K c&K c&K c&K c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D 0.02 0.02 c/ cubic c., the average dignity of the previous c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c&D c

(13) From May 3, 2010 to May 14, 2010, the Plaintiff visited Africa countries as members of the “Energy Cooperation and Diplomatic Representatives,” and was included in the visiting countries. In particular, on May 11, 2010, the Council was scheduled to be held between the relevant ministries of the Kamermeri government to discuss whether to conclude the development agreement on the instant mineral deposits. However, the representative members, including Nonparty 5, the deputy governor, the representative head of the Africa Africa, participated in the said Council and engaged in support activities to acquire the right to develop the instant mineral deposits.

At the Council of the above Ministries, the director general of the mineral department and the director general of the geological bureau of 12 minerals of Kamere at the Council of the above Ministries made a statement to the effect that the development conditions will be granted through a thorough review of the proposal for the development plan submitted by C&K mining (Kamere), and that the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ have made a statement to the effect that the

On May 11, 2010, the Ambassador 2 sent a full text of reporting the activities of the “Energy Cooperation Diplomatic Representative” to the Republic of Korea, China and China on May 13, 2010, and on the 18th of the same month, Nonparty 2 sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the full text stated that the acquisition of the right to develop the D&K mining deposit is almost certain.

(14) At the time of the Plaintiff’s visit to Kameron around May 2010, the Plaintiff received brochuress on the part of the C&C case, stating that the Damond store quantity of the instant mineral deposit was 4.20 million Won and later received the part on which the Damond estimated store quantity was indicated in the final exploration report by C&K. The Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff became aware that the estimated store quantity of the instant mineral deposit was 4.2 billion won by means of a report by the Embassy and an explanation by the staff related to the C&K.

(15) On June 15, 2010, Kameron had been finally selected as a priority cooperation station at the “Meeting for Selection of the Priority and Free Integration Bureau” (the Plaintiff participated in the meeting above) held in Cheongmera, which entered into an agreement on the development of the mineral deposits of this case with the Kamera Government on July 9, 2010, and the C&K mining entered into an agreement on the development of the mineral deposits of this case.

(16) On July 2010, the Plaintiff was changed from the position of the Prime Minister’s Office of the Diplomatic Policy Officer to the position of an Ambassador for Energy and Resources. On October 25, 2010, the Republic of Korea was selected as a priority cooperation partner, and the Republic of Korea received free support for the establishment of the mineral resources testing station.

(17) C&K mining has acquired the right to develop the mineral deposits of this case from the government of Chicago on December 16, 2010, the duration of which is 25 years.

(C)a project in the business territory of Korean companies other than C&K and support activities therefor;

(1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff visited Kameron on May 2009. At that time, the Plaintiff met Nonparty 13’s leader of energy and water resources, and stated that the Republic of Korea wishes to share the technology and experience accumulated through the "The 4th River Slaughter Project", and the Minister of Energy and Water Resources Department of Kamers tried to cooperate with Korean companies to develop the natural gas resources of Kamers. Furthermore, the Plaintiff discussed whether to participate in the development of the gas resources of Kamers through an interview with Kamers, the Plaintiff discussed whether to participate in the development of the natural gas of Kamers.

In particular, the plaintiff attended the "Energy for Energy" in which government and business parties in the Kamera participate and discussed ways to expand the participation of Korean companies in the development of oil, natural gas, and minerals in the Kamera, and in the process, it is discussed whether the gas corporation and mineral corporation can cooperate with the UK, the United States, and Australia companies that invest in the Kamera.

In addition, at the time of the interview with the non-party 14 industry, mining, and technology development department of Chicago, the Plaintiff requested not only the mineral deposits of this case but also the non-party 14 to pay attention to and support to the company that was promoting the exploration and development of gold mines. In addition, at the time, the Plaintiff took part in the bidding conference on the promotion of the establishment and promotion of the Master Plan for Railroad that is handled by Korean companies, and thus, the Plaintiff also complained of interest to the Kamere government.

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff moved to the Vice Minister of State Affairs, and visited Kameron on May 2010. At that time, Nonparty 5 requested the Kamere Government to provide assistance to the participation in the development of resources in the petroleum, gas and mineral resources Corporation, in addition to the acquisition of the right to develop the mineral deposits of this case, the Plaintiff requested the Kamere Government to participate in the development of infrastructure, such as the port and railway in Kamere, and the construction of housing in Kamere. In addition, at the time, discussions on the feasibility of the Korean company's investment in the development of infrastructure and the construction of housing in Kamere, such as the port and railway in Kamere.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 9, 16, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 43 (including each number), Gap's evidence Nos. 14-2, Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(ii) the board;

A) The duties performed by the Plaintiff include the duties of supporting the business activities of companies entering a foreign country. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff provided preferential treatment to certain companies by itself on the ground that the Plaintiff supported a specific company that is going into a foreign country. In particular, the Plaintiff has the discretion to determine whether the support activities for a certain company as a high-ranking diplomat are reasonable, and such discretion requires a high level of specialized judgment on various policy factors, such as government policies and economic impact in the field of industry at the time. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude such a decision and its support activities as grounds for disciplinary action. On the contrary, if the subject of disciplinary action on the area belonging to the high-ranking public official’s high-ranking policy discretion is subject to disciplinary action, it would result in serving the purpose of guaranteeing the status of public officials guaranteed under Article 7 of the Constitution by enabling disciplinary action against public officials according to the government authority different from the evaluation of the policy decisions of high-ranking public officials.

Of course, the entire support activities of high-ranking diplomats for companies entering overseas are not justified. For example, in the event that private interests are involved in support activities for companies (such as the holding of shares or the holding of relatives and relatives, etc.), more strict review should be conducted as to whether such support activities are reasonable, and in addition, in the event that support for the relevant companies is deemed to be too biased in terms of social norms, national administrative power is equally allocated and unnecessary consumption of administrative power may be caused.

B) However, if we look at the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s support activities as grounds for disciplinary action for the following reasons.

(1) First of all, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had a private interest relationship with the C&K (the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff purchased C&K’s shares through her relatives and relatives, and thus, the Plaintiff has such interest. However, such assertion is difficult to accept as it did not have any ground as seen in the foregoing paragraph 2. E.). Therefore, when determining whether the Plaintiff’s support activities against C&K constitute grounds for disciplinary action, it should be sufficiently considered that the Plaintiff has a considerable broad policy discretion to determine whether to support a certain company as a high-ranking diplomat.

(2) The time when the Plaintiff’s commencement of support activities on the part of the C&K came to have become a critical point of view. Although Cmond did not include the petroleum, gas, and six strategic minerals in the third overseas resources development master plan of the government, it is also included in the broad meaning of overseas resources. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s judgment clearly lacks rationality as a business activity worthy of support as part of resource diplomacy emphasized by the government at the time of the development of Dmon mineral deposits. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the support activities within the ordinary range of time (such as sending the main day requesting to support the activities of C&K to the Ambassador 2) do not immediately fall under the grounds for disciplinary action.

(3) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that: (a) the Plaintiff, beyond the above ordinary support activities, visited and visited Kamers twice; (b) the Plaintiff selected Kamers as a priority cooperation partner group; and (c) the establishment of a mineral testing institute without compensation, etc., is an excessive preference to small and medium-sized enterprises whose business prospects are uncertain. However, in Kamers, there was a need to secure the right to develop Kamers as well as to secure the right to develop Kamers because only the third overseas resources development plan, including petroleum, gas, etc., are buried in large quantities; and (d) there was an opportunity for Korea to participate in the construction of Kamers infrastructure. In fact, Korea has dealt with the above potential of Kamers. Since 1 had already been known to Nonparty 1, 200, the Plaintiff had already been designated as an energy cooperation diplomatic mission in Korea with respect to the construction of Kamers, and the Republic of Korea has not been able to support the expansion of Kamers infrastructure as well as other persons related to Kamers.

(4) Of course, although the Plaintiff sent to Nonparty 2’s Ambassador, as to other minerals and companies sent by Nonparty 2’s Ambassador, it does not mention the name, etc. in detail, on the other hand, as to the side of the C&K, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was given special attention to the C&K’s running business in the Republic of Korea in the Camera, it was prior to the entry into the Republic of Korea in the case of other resources development projects, while it was prior to the entry into the Republic of Korea in the case of other resources development projects, on the other hand, prior to the completion of exploration and completion of exploration and the grant of development rights, it is deemed that there were more specific reports or directions on the side of C&K, and therefore it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s support activities on the side of C&K were excessively biased and thus preferential.

(5) 물론, 씨앤케이인터의 공시자료 상 씨앤케이인터의 자본잠식률이 높고, 손실이 수년간 누적되었으므로 원고로서는 씨앤케이인터가 막대한 자금이 소요되는 광상 개발에 적합한지 여부에 관하여 합리적 의심을 가지는 것이 옳다고 여겨질 수 있다. 그러나 이 사건 광상 개발을 처음부터 주도한 것은 씨앤케이인터가 아니라 CNK마이닝(한국)과 C＆K마이닝(카메룬)이었고, 씨앤케이인터는 코스닥시장에 상장되어 있던 전혀 별개의 회사로서, 소외 1 측이 2009년 초경 CNK마이닝(한국) 및 C＆K마이닝(카메룬)의 우회 상장을 위해 인수한 회사에 불과하였다. 따라서 씨앤케이인터의 경영실적이 나빴다 하더라도 이는 이 사건 광상 개발을 실질적으로 추진하고 있던 CNK마이닝(한국)이나 C＆K마이닝(카메룬)의 개발능력이나 실적과 무관한 것으로서 2009년 무렵의 씨앤케이인터의 경영실적만을 두고 원고의 지원활동이 성급했다고 판단할 수 없다. 오히려 원고로서는 소외 1이 2008년 말경 상장회사인 씨앤케이인터를 인수한 것을 보고 소외 1이 운영하던 CNK마이닝(한국)과 C＆K마이닝(카메룬)이 건실한 회사라고 판단하였을 수 있다고 여겨지고, 비록 이와 같은 판단이 결과적으로 잘못되었다고 할지라도{씨앤케이인터의 인수자금은 결과적으로 인수 후의 유상증자자금을 통해 충당되어 소외 1이나 CNK마이닝(한국) 측의 자금은 거의 투여되지 않았다} 그 당시의 사정(씨앤케이인터가 인수되었음을 보도하는 언론보도자료 및 씨앤케이인터의 2009. 2.경의 공시자료 등)에 비추어 보면 원고의 오판을 탓할 수 없다고 여겨진다.

(6) Lastly, if the Plaintiff received a report from Nonparty 2, etc. on the suspicion that the Gmond store quantity of the instant mineral deposit was raised, the Defendant should have deliberated on the opinions of experts on the Gmond store quantity and decided on the government support activities. However, the Plaintiff committed an act of supporting the instant mineral deposit with the belief that there was economic feasibility in the development of the instant mineral deposit on the basis of only the data on the part of the CWK case without going through such process. However, insofar as the instant mineral deposit did not have the right to explore the Dmond store level, it seems difficult for the Plaintiff to obtain an analysis of the credibility of the Dmond store quantity of the instant mineral deposit from a third party located in the Republic of Korea, under the circumstance that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to carry out exploration activities on the Dmond store volume to a certain extent. Moreover, it appears that the Plaintiff did not separately have the negative opinion on the development of the instant mineral deposit from around 20, the Plaintiff did not have the right to develop the instant mineral deposit.

C. Whether the first report materials among the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 of the instant case constitute grounds for disciplinary action

1) Facts of recognition

A) At the time of working in the Prime Minister around July 2010, the Plaintiff heard that Nonparty 1 entered into a development agreement with the government that dealt with C&K with the instant mineral deposit, and based on the report materials from the side of C&K, the Plaintiff prepared and kept materials for responding to the press of the Prime Minister’s office. The foregoing report materials indicated that 4.20 million won can be presumed to have been buried in the instant mineral deposit as asserted by C&K.

B) On December 17, 2010, the Plaintiff heard that Nonparty 1 acquired the right to develop the mineral deposits of this case from Nonparty 1 on the new wall, and made contact to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea with the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, and sent the transfer thereof.

C) On December 17, 2010, the Korean Broadcasting broadcasted an article that obtained the right to develop the mineral deposits, the estimated store quantity of which is 4.20 million won in C&K, through a news on December 17, 2010.

D) While the Plaintiff’s arrival of the said transfer, the Plaintiff prepared the first report data on the basis of data for countermeasures against the press of the Prime Minister’s Office written around July 2010. After that, the Plaintiff’s first report data arrive at the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, and the said full text stated that the quantity of the instant mineral deposit is not 4.2 billion won, but 4.1.5 billion won, and the basis was also stated as based on the data for self-inspection of the C&C case. The Plaintiff did not revise the first report data on the ground that the said full text was not significantly different from the content of the previous report data.

E) Among the first news report data, UNP data presented as the basis for the multimond quantity of the instant mineral deposit. From 1995 to 1997, the Plaintiff only perused the data in 1985 to 1987, and the data in 1995 to 1997 were not timely. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff merely saw only part of the final exploration report on which the multimonmond quantity of the instant mineral deposit was 4.1.5 billion won.

F) On the same day on which the first news report material was distributed, Nonparty 1 acquired the right to develop the instant mineral deposit in which the estimated store quantity is at least 420 million Won. Nonparty 1 distributed the report material stating the value of the said mineral deposit as KRW 420 million. Nonparty 1 had an interview on this fact reported to the press.

G) On December 17, 2010, C&K, listed on the KOSDAQ market, published the acquisition of the right to develop the said mineral deposits as a voluntary publication. However, the aforementioned publication was not indicated in the multimond sales volume of the instant mineral deposits. This is because the Korea Exchange, which manages the KOSDAQ, pointed out that the said estimated sales volume was not objectively verified.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 4-1, Evidence No. 43, Evidence No. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(ii) the board;

A) First of all, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s name should not be specified in the report materials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and that the Plaintiff constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, on the grounds that the Plaintiff explicitly mentioned the name of a specific company in the first report materials of the report materials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. However, according to the statement of the evidence No. 14-3 of the evidence No. 14-2, there are considerable cases where the name of a specific company is mentioned in the report materials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In addition, in a case where a certain company’s performance was performed under the support activities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it cannot be deemed that there was any error by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade promoting the company’s performance as the performance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The first report materials contain specific names on the part of

B) Next, we examine whether there was a violation of the Plaintiff’s duty of care in preparing the first news report material. Considering that the news report material produced and distributed by an administrative agency is a single means to promote government affairs, even if there is a somewhat director in the relevant news report material, if the contents recorded in the news report material coincide with overall objective facts, it cannot be said that there is any illegality against the person who prepares the relevant news report material. However, if it is confirmed that the contents indicated in the news report material are not facts, if it infringes on a third party’s legal interest or damages the public interest to be protected by other Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations, the public official who prepares the report document bears a duty of care to ensure that the fact is closely verified and the distribution of the report material does not infringe on the public interest or a third party’s interest.

C) In this regard, a listed company’s disclosure may have a significant impact on ordinary investors’ investment in listed stocks, and may have an adverse effect on the soundness of the securities market if false information is disclosed, and may lead to the losses of ordinary investors who invested in the relevant securities by reliance on such false information. For this reason, where false information is stated in the mandatory disclosure, a strict liability provision for damages (see Article 162 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) and criminal punishment provisions for the participants (see Article 444 subparag. 13 of the same Act). In addition, where a listed company listed in the KOSDAQ market voluntarily publishes matters other than the mandatory disclosure provisions under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the disclosure is designated as a non-public disclosure corporation if false or material information is disclosed (see Articles 26, 27, 32, and 34 of the KOSDAQ Disclosure Act).

Therefore, if the contents pertaining to the disclosure of a listed company are included in the report materials of an administrative agency, it is required to pay more attention to the authenticity of the contents as a public official. In particular, with respect to matters which have not been objectively verified and which have not been disclosed by the Financial Services Commission or the Korea Exchange, if an administrative agency, which is a public agency, entered them in the report materials, it is easy for general public to believe that the facts have been recognized as a public official. As a result, this would result in a deviation from the legislative intent of disclosure under the Capital Markets Act and the Korea Exchange Disclosure Regulations, which aims to maintain the soundness of the market through the disclosure system and protect general investors, and thus, the public official should pay due attention to preventing such matters from being made bypass through the form of report materials.

D) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the health stand back to the instant case and by the facts recognized earlier, the Plaintiff’s first news report materials stating that “The quantity of multimond store of the instant mineral deposits is at least approximately 4.20 million (the result of UNDP survey in 95-97 and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”)” constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

(1) At the time of the distribution of the first news report materials, Nonparty 1 and CNK bargaining (Korea) acquired a c&Ker listed on the KOSDAQ market. C&Kr intended to publicly announce whether to acquire the right to develop the instant mineral deposits of this case by a voluntary public announcement stipulated in Article 26 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of the KOSDAQ, but the Korea Exchange did not, on the ground that there were no objective grounds for the estimated mineral deposits of this case, publicly announce the estimated store quantity.

(2) The Plaintiff was aware that the fact of acquiring the right to develop the mineral deposits of C&&K mining had a significant impact on the share price of the C&K. Therefore, the Plaintiff was required to pay more careful attention to the authenticity when inserting the fact of obtaining the right to develop the mineral deposits of C&K in the news report materials, and the ripple effect on the stock market.

(3) Before examining whether the Plaintiff fulfilled the above duty of care, whether the content indicated in the first report is false or not shall be examined. On the basis of the UNDP’s report, Nonparty 3, who belongs to ○○○ unit, stated that the Damond store was buried in the instant mineral deposit, and based on the above report, submitted the final exploration report that, as a result of Nonparty 1 (after Non-Party 3’s death, Non-Party 11 included the above work, Non-Party 4.1.6 billion Won in the estimated quantity of the instant mineral deposit) to the Kamera, the estimated quantity of store was approximately 4.1.6 billion in the estimated quantity. In addition, the UNDP report itself does not indicate the estimated quantity of 4.2 billion won in the UNDP report, but it is considered that the UNDP report provided important materials in the process of calculating the estimated quantity, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above estimated quantity was publicly stated.

On the other hand, the result of the final exploration by the professor ○○○ (○○○○) Nonparty 3 was calculated by multiplying the estimated sales volume by approximately 4.1.6 billion, while the first news report was recorded by 4.2 billion Won. However, this cannot be deemed a statement of false facts in that it can be seen as a statement of false facts in that the “4.1.6 billion won” as stated in the final exploration report may be considered as one million won per unit. Ultimately, the first news report was prepared on the basis of the final exploration report by the professor ○○ (○○○) Nonparty 3, who actually existed, and cannot be said to be false.

(4) However, on January 7, 2010, the Plaintiff had already received a report from Nonparty 2’s Ambassador to the effect that the store volume should be carefully and carefully accessed because it is merely an estimated store volume, not an estimated store volume. After the submission of the final exploration report, the Plaintiff stated the content of the existing final exploration report as it is, without undergoing a separate verification procedure, even though it was aware of the fact that the additional investigation was conducted in the “new calendar layer” after the submission of the final exploration report. Moreover, the economic analysis of the above final exploration report clearly stated that the quantity of the Damond could be actually recovered is less than the quantity indicated in the final exploration report. However, the Plaintiff appears to have received the claim by C&K Gam (C&C) on the side of the case where it appears that the Plaintiff could have known that the estimated volume of the mineral deposit in this case could have been 4.20 million won or more, and that it could have been able to have known that the estimated volume of the instant mineral deposit was less than the quantity indicated in the final exploration report.

(5) As such, the Plaintiff, based on the final exploration report of the C&K, was in the position to know, or could have known, the distorted increase in the mineral deposits of this case when publishing about about 4.2 billion won, based on the presumption of the mineral deposits of this case. This was also included in the report materials even though the Plaintiff had been aware or could have known that the contents of the listed corporation were included in the report materials. This was negligent in exercising the duty of care that public officials should pay if the contents of the listed corporation are included in the report materials, and as a result, the Plaintiff neglected such duty of care and caused the same increase as that recognized through the report materials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

(6) To such extent, the distribution of the first news report materials constitutes legitimate grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

D. Whether the distribution of the second report materials among the facts of the second disciplinary action in this case constitutes grounds for disciplinary action

1) Facts of recognition

A) The details of the distribution of the second news report data

(1) On June 27, 2011, the Korean Economic Newspapers reported that, in the article No. 1999, the general investors who invested in the shares of the C&K did not verify the exact facts through the first news report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, without confirming the facts through the first news report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the share price of the instant mineral deposit increased, and thereby, the rise in the rise of C&K’s share price, and thereby, the general investors who invested in the shares of the C&K caused damage.

(2) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade saw the need to respond to the above critical articles, and the Plaintiff prepared a draft of the second news report materials to this end, and there was an expression that the Kameri Government officially recognized the store quantity of the instant mineral deposit, but Nonparty 10, the Director of the International Economic Bureau, in the process of approval, deleted the references to the “store quantity” in the process of approval.

(3) The above non-party 10 delivered his opinion to the effect that it is inappropriate to distribute the report materials to the Plaintiff during the process of obtaining the second report materials. However, the Plaintiff stated the necessity of distributing the second report materials, which led to the distribution of the second report materials. At the time of being examined by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the non-party 10 stated that he was not in the position of receiving the direction or under the direction from the Plaintiff.

(4) At the time, Nonparty 15, who was involved in the distribution of news reports to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as the head of the energy climate change environment and the energy team at the time, was also discussed in the prosecution about the case of the above article together with other matters at the conference for the countermeasures against the public room in charge of Korean economic article, and it was also the idea of the director, the deliberation officer, and the head of the division, who had been in the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to continuously respond to the situation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

B) Circumstances on whether to confirm the estimated volume of sales stores by the Kamera Government

(1) In the first sentence of August 24, 2011 of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, Nonparty 7 stated that “In granting a development right, Nonparty 7 believed and granted the applicant company’s report on the results of exploration on the side of the company at the level that the applicant company would develop minerals well, and that the mining division’s re-verification of the volume of burial would eventually waste time and costs as a double exploration.”

(2) On December 14, 201, when investigating the details of the distribution of news report data, Nonparty 6 Inspector, etc., who belongs to the Board of Audit and Inspection, visited Nonparty 7, along with the Embassy staff of the Republic of Korea Embassy in the Republic of Korea. Nonparty 7 stated at the time of the interview that the Government of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea did not “Scrosche”. In addition, Nonparty 8 stated that “The Government of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea did not return to the site for additional work or cracks” in addition, Nonparty 8 was unable to return to the site for the purpose of performing additional work or cracks (Camreon Grod.).

(3) Around October 21, 2011, Nonparty 7 made a statement to the effect that the Canadian Government confirms the process or result of exploration of the C&&K learning (C&C). At the time of Nonparty 7’s failure, Nonparty 7 made a statement to the effect that “In order to confirm the process or result of exploration, the confirmation of environmental impact and economic impact assessment shall be given to the right of development,” and that “explosion shall be free to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be reviewed.”

(4) Furthermore, even in the e-mail exchanged by the C&K employees, it can be seen that the Kmercian government dispatched public officials to check the site. In addition, the Kmercian government requested an additional investigation on the c&K’s new reverse cancers on the part of the C&K after the C&K submitted the final exploration report and received a report on the results of blasting investigation on the new reverse cancers twice.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 4-2, Evidence No. 7-2, Evidence No. 43, Evidence No. 5, 6, 10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(ii) the board;

A) Whether the Plaintiff suffered unfair pressure in the course of preparing the second news report materials

First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff made an unfair pressure on the distribution of the second news report materials and approved the Plaintiff. While Nonparty 10 had expressed his dissenting opinion on the distribution of the second news report materials at the time, the head of the International Economic Bureau of the Republic of Korea and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of June 27, 201, the administrative agency had experienced the need to respond in any form to Korean economic articles of June 27, 2011, it is considered that preparing the corresponding news report materials is ordinary; the Plaintiff did not issue or direct orders to Nonparty 10; the Plaintiff did not have any position to issue or direct the second news report materials; in the process of determining the distribution of the second news report materials by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff unfairly forced Nonparty 10 to deliver the second news report materials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it is difficult to deem that Nonparty 10 did not have any duty by unfairly abusing his authority to distribute the second news report materials.

B) Whether the content of the second news report is inappropriate

(1) Next, we examine whether false facts are included in the second news report material or whether the Plaintiff did not exercise the duty of due care for its preparation. First, as seen earlier, the materials of the administrative agency’s news report, which represent the position of the administrative agency, are somewhat exaggerated expressions, and thus, it cannot be caused by the fact that they used a somewhat exaggerated expression in the report material.

(2) According to the above facts, when granting the right to develop the mineral deposits in its own territory, the Kamera Government is not trusted as it is, but internal careful review of whether there is economic feasibility to the extent that it grants the right to develop the mineral deposits (it shall be proved that there is only two parts granted the right to develop the minerals in its own country, and that there is considerable strict progress in the process of granting the right to develop the mineral deposits in Kamera Government). In the case of the mineral deposits in this case, the Kamera Government requested an additional investigation of the Kamera's "new Mamero" after receiving the final exploration report from Ka&K bargaining and the right to develop the mineral deposits was granted only after such additional investigation was conducted. Accordingly, it is not known that the Kamera Government granted the right to develop the mineral deposits in this case based on the unilateral assertion of C&K mining.

(3) In the expression of the second news report material, the expression “C&C” that the C&C government performed strict comparison review in the course of exploration is an expression clearly opposed to the statement of Nonparty 7 that the C&C government does not hold crocs-Ck. However, it cannot be deemed that the second news report material contains any false statement on the following grounds: (a) it is unclear what the C&C government specifically refers to; and (b) it is possible to use the expression “C&C” in the internal review of the credibility of the materials in the C&K-C-C-C-C-C-C-C; and (c) in light of the fact that at the time of the second news report material, the above speech of Nonparty 7 was made known at the time of the second news report material, it cannot be deemed that the second news report material contains any false statement on the ground that the expression “C&C-C-C-C” was made.

(4) However, among the second news report materials, the expression "the news report materials about the acquisition of the Somond on December 17, 2010 are based on the presentation by the Government of the Republic of Korea and Trade," or the expression "C&K mining (C&K) submitted to the Government of the Republic of Korea with a Kamere a comprehensive exploration report specifying the store capacity, and granting a Kamere's development right to C&K mining (C&K) by the Kamere Government officially recognized the results of exploration of C&K mining (C&K mining)" as stated in the first news report materials.

(5) However, there is room for doubt as to whether the plaintiff officially recognizes the store quantity recorded in the report by granting the development right through the final exploration report of C&K&K-learning. In particular, as seen earlier, the plaintiff was in a position to know about the objectivity of the estimated store quantity, and if he paid a little attention, he was in a position to know such materials. ③ The second report materials were distributed in the following situations: (a) questions as to the authenticity of the estimated store quantity, and (b) the second report materials were circulated in the following situations: (c) there were questions as to the authenticity of the estimated store quantity, and (c) there was a strong announcement that ordinary investors suffered damages through the announcement of the estimated store quantity, the plaintiff should pay maximum attention so as not to mislead the misunderstanding of the estimated store quantity in preparing the second report materials. Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the second report materials contain errors such as those recognized by the government dealing with the Republic of Korea, and thus, they constitute legitimate grounds for the disciplinary action against the plaintiff within the scope of the second report.

E. Whether the ground for disciplinary action No. 3 of this case exists

1) Facts of recognition

A) Since March 18, 2009, Nonparty 16, Nonparty 17, Nonparty 18, and Nonparty 19, who are the Plaintiff’s relatives and relatives, purchased the shares of the C&K. However, there is no evidence to show that the Plaintiff himself/herself provided funds to the said relatives and relatives for a stock transaction, or that he/she acquired profits from the said stock transaction.

B) In the report, the Financial Supervisory Service revealed that “the results of the investigation and processing of unfair trade in the stocks of C&K,” and that “the results of the investigation and investigation of false news report data distribution, etc.,” and that “the Plaintiff is not related to Nonparty 1 and C&K’s officers and employees, etc., and the results of the analysis of sale and purchase of the large volume sale account after the date of acquisition of the right to develop the Damon mine.”

C) From March 18, 2009 to April 3, 2009; from June 15, 2010 to June 28, 2010; from October 6, 2010 to October 18, 2010; and from January 7, 2011 to January 13, 201, when the Plaintiff’s friendship and human relatives purchased the Plaintiff’s shares, the time of purchase was between March 18, 2009 and April 3, 2009; and from January 13, 201, the time of the Plaintiff’s activities related to L&C, such as distribution of news report data or car visit.

D) Meanwhile, among the Plaintiff’s relatives, relatives, and related persons, those who actually gained profit through the purchase and sale of the shares of the C&K is not more than three persons, and the time when the said persons traded shares is not closely related to the time of the Plaintiff’s activity. Other persons do not have profit from the purchase and sale of shares, and rather, as the share price of the C&K significantly drops, they report losses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 43, Eul evidence No. 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

(ii) the board;

A) The third ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff’s relatives and relatives with information related to the acquisition of the instant mineral deposits and the right to develop a multimond development, and caused them to gain pecuniary benefits. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff committed the foregoing misconduct on the grounds that the Plaintiff had provided the Plaintiff with information about the acquisition of the instant mineral deposits and the right to develop a multimond development. On January 2009, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff had stated the multimond mineral deposits at the place where his family members are gathered and received several contacts with Nonparty 16.

B) However, as seen earlier, the report that the C&K’s side is proceeding with the exploration of the Dmond mineral deposits from March 2008 began, and since it started from March 2008, the Plaintiff’s referenced to the level that he/she was in charge of his/her duties at a family conference at the end of the end of January 2009 cannot be deemed as a misconduct (no evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff transmitted more specific circumstances than the aforementioned mentioned above), and it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff provided information on the stock transaction to relatives and relatives solely on the fact that the Plaintiff contacted Nonparty 16, one’s own birth.

C) In addition, if the Plaintiff thought that he would deliver the information known to him while performing his duties and gain profits from his relatives and relatives, the said relatives and relatives had them acquire shares prior to the conclusion of the development agreement on the side of the C&K, or the acquisition of the development right, or the distribution of each report material as above. However, most of the acquisition time of shares by the said relatives and relatives is irrelevant to the time of support activities for the Plaintiff’s C&K mining. Furthermore, it is more reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s friendship and relatives purchased shares based on the matters reported by the media, rather than on the special information that the Plaintiff purchased shares based on the special information obtained from the Plaintiff, and that there was considerable time of media reports on the development of C&K’s C&K at the time of such circumstance.

D) Therefore, the facts of the third disciplinary action cannot constitute a legitimate disciplinary cause against the Plaintiff.

(f) Appropriateness of a disciplinary decision

1) Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take a disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority has considerably lost validity under the generally accepted social norms, the measure is unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the generally accepted social norms, it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly deemed unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, etc. And even if the exercise of the authority to take a disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, it is against the public interest principles that should exercise the authority to take a disciplinary measure for public interest, or if the exercise of the authority to take a disciplinary measure is contrary to the generally accepted principles that should not be balanced compared to the degree of flight, thereby violating the principle of proportionality or the principle of fair application of the same degree without reasonable grounds, it is unlawful.

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed in light of the following facts, the instant disposition is deemed unlawful as an excessive disciplinary action that has lost balance compared to the Plaintiff’s degree of flight.

A) As seen earlier, the grounds for disciplinary action, which can be recognized to the Plaintiff, did not carefully examine the estimated quantity of the mineral deposits of this case when distributing the materials for the first and second reports, and did not unilaterally reflect the materials provided by the C&K, and did not raise the impression that the government of the K&A recognized it.

B) However, the content contained in the first news report (i.e., at least KRW 4.20 million discount volume of the instant mineral deposit based on the UNDP data is based on the investigation report by Nonparty 3 professors affiliated with ○○○○○○ Group, and the content of the report cannot be deemed false, and the preparation of the report does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. The mere fact that the Plaintiff unilaterally included only favorable materials on the side of C&C case when the Plaintiff was in a position to know the opposite circumstances, thereby undermining the soundness of the stock market by unilaterally including only those materials favorable to the Plaintiff.

In addition, even in the case of the second news report, the first news report is not simply made on the basis of the announcement of the Kamercian government, and it is not explicitly false because the Kamerc government explicitly recognized and announced the estimated quantity of the mineral deposit of this case, but it is merely a fact that the first news report was made on the basis of the announcement of the Kamerc government, and that the Kamerc government explicitly recognized the final exploration report, and it is merely a fact that there is a possibility that

C) As seen earlier, in the case of news report materials prepared as part of the public relations activities of the administrative agency, it is general to emphasize the public administration of the administrative agency. Accordingly, the promotional materials introduced by Korean enterprises to obtain the right to develop a multi-mond mineral deposit as a result of the support activities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which have emerged only the positive aspect of the right to develop the mineral deposit, or used some expressions that are somewhat misleading in the process of responding to critical articles to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and thus, it cannot be deemed that

D) Furthermore, prior to the distribution of the first news report data in the media, the Korean Broadcasting has already reported the acquisition of the right to develop the Damon mineral deposit with the estimated deposit amount of 4.2 billion won, and it is an index with which the Plaintiff had a significant impact on the market order by including it in the news report data, as it had already been widely known even through Nonparty 1’s news report data and interview. Moreover, in the distribution of the second news report data, it is difficult to find that the news report data by a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had a significant impact on the general investors’ judgment.

E) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s disposition of “Gang, etc.” is that the Plaintiff, in collusion with the C&K’s side, supported the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the right to develop the instant mineral deposits in order to increase the share price, distributed reports favorable to the C&K to increase the share price, and thereby, obtained economic benefits from the Plaintiff’s friendship and relatives. In other words, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff was based on the Plaintiff’s unjust pursuit of his/her own or a third party’s interests by using his/her duties. However, the Plaintiff’s subsidization of the Plaintiff’s activities is considered as a legitimate part of his/her duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the public relations with the Plaintiff. Moreover, since it was not revealed that there was a special relationship between the Plaintiff’s relative and the Plaintiff’s investment and the Plaintiff’s activities, it is no longer an element to consider that the Plaintiff sought the Plaintiff’s own or a third party’s interests through his/her duties.

F) Rather, the Plaintiff’s misconduct (i.e., the preparation and distribution of reports Nos. 1 and 2 containing inappropriate contents) is not for private interest purposes, but merely for the purpose of promoting performance in the course of performing duties or responding to critical articles against the administrative agencies to which he/she belongs. In this regard, the possibility of criticism against the Plaintiff is significantly lower than the possibility of criticism based on the facts of disciplinary action, which is the premise of the disposition of this case.

G) Furthermore to such circumstances, the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct constitutes “a case where the degree of corruption is weak and transitional,” as prescribed by Article 2(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration No. 91, Sept. 2, 2014) and “a case where the degree of corruption is weak and transitional.” According to the above [Attachment Table 1], public officials who committed the above type

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) Support for

Note 1) There is a village in the name of Yokauma in the area concerned, so it is called Yokaum mineral deposit.

Note 2) The term “water level” refers to the quantity of multimond Wons per cubic meter into one cubic meter.

(3) The Plaintiff asserted that the foregoing report material contains a statement on the discovery of a large amount of 700 million Montreal mineral deposits, but there is no supporting material.

Note 4) Demal cancer is divided into a scarcity and a scarcity. Nonparty 3 had the view that two kinds of reverse cancer are fundamentally the same as that of a scarcity, and thus, Nonparty 3 calculated the average dignity of reverse cancer only with samples taken from a scarcity cancer.