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 March 1, 1983, the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher belonging to the Gangwon-do Office of Education on March 30, 1990, and was transferred to the Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do on March 30, 199, and thereafter, the Plaintiff served as a chief teacher from March 1, 2016 to Gyeongbuk-do Office of Education.

B. On December 29, 2016, the public prosecutor in charge of the Seogu District Public Prosecutor’s Office investigated the Plaintiff into the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to suspicion of misappropriation, and issued a disposition of non-prosecution (Suspension of Prosecution) on the following grounds.

The name of the crime: The facts of suspicion of breach of trust - D, around March 2015, stated that “The suspect (Plaintiff) and the director of the G Educational Foundation, who introduced the suspect, who wanted to employ teachers of F at one’s own house located in the third floor of the building in Jung-gu, Daegu, Daegu, as well as H, stated that “The amount of compensation is required to be employed as a teacher. It is KRW 170 million.”

- Around August 2015, the suspect issued KRW 100 million in cash to D with H as well as with H’s house, and issued additional KRW 70 million in cash to D in the same way around October 2015.

(hereinafter “the instant misconduct”). The grounds for non-prosecution - all facts of suspicion are recognized.

- There are circumstances to be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the suspect does not have the same kind of criminal record, the motive for the crime committed in this case, the depth, and reflects it, and the fact that he actively cooperates in the investigation and contributes to the discovery of substantial truth.

- suspend prosecution against the suspect only once;

C. On January 23, 2017, the Defendant demanded a disciplinary decision to the General Disciplinary Committee of the Office of Education of the Gyeonggi-do, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act.

On February 23, 2017, the General Disciplinary Committee of the Office of Education of the Gyeongbuk-do decided to dismiss the Plaintiff, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on March 1, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, and to the Teachers’ Appeal Committee on March 23, 2017.