1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning “specific determination as to the appropriateness of disciplinary assistance” in the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(Other, the grounds alleged by the Defendant and the Intervenor do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted to this court was examined, the findings of fact in the first instance court and the judgment are justifiable). [The part submitted] The last 2 to 14th 7th juries in the first instance court are as follows.

“A) The Intervenor had a high level of ethics and duty to maintain good faith and dignity as a faculty member of the instant university, and was in the position to direct and supervise the team members under his/her control as the faculty member of the instant university.

However, the intervenor, taking advantage of his position, has committed the acts of disciplinary reasons from 1 to 6 against the assistant instructors who are only 20 middle class groups, and the degree of the misconduct is more severe.

B) Disciplinary causes No. 1 through 4 may constitute “sexual harassment on the job” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act (hereinafter “Equal Employment Opportunity Act”). In particular, the first disciplinary cause is heavier than the degree of sexual harassment.

The intervenor argues that the intervenor was merely intended to take advantage of the expression of friendlyness, and that there was no intention of sexual harassment or sexual harassment, and that there was a difference or error in the cultural perception of gender equality, etc., and that it should be sufficiently considered in a disciplinary decision.

However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act imposes on an employer obligations such as the implementation of education to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, disciplinary action against a perpetrator, prohibition of disadvantageous measures against a victim, etc., and such measures such as education are implemented for a considerable period of time.