1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, and 11 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):

On February 26, 1993, the plaintiff was appointed as a Grade 10 driver at the public master's office of Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office on February 26, 1993. From July 2005, the plaintiff was working at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Association, and on April 11, 2007, the plaintiff was promoted to Grade 8.

B. Upon receipt of a request from the professor C of the Gongju University known to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was issued on October 24, 2012 at the office of workers at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office ( October 23, 2012), and reported the fact that the warrant was issued, and notified C of the fact that other search and seizure warrant was issued in the same manner as on December 26, 2012.

C. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant, following a resolution by the General Disciplinary Committee of the Daejeon High Prosecutor’s Office, violated Article 127 of the Criminal Act by disclosing the fact that the Plaintiff issued a search and seizure warrant, which was acquired on duty, to the Plaintiff, and thereby violating Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 60 (Duty of Confidentiality), and 63 (Duty of Confidentiality) of the State Public Officials Act, dismissed the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 17 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal review seeking the cancellation or mitigation of a dismissal disposition with the appeals review committee, but the appeals review committee dismissed it on October 10, 2013.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff did not refuse to refuse the request of the professor of C in connection with university admission of son and did not receive any consideration or promise to issue a warrant, and confidential information disclosed.