1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following parts.

The plaintiff appealed that the disposition of this case is unlawful by violating the principle of proportionality, on the grounds of the details of the moving-in report for resident registration, investigation circumstances, and merits.

However, even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the plaintiff's assertion were re-examineed, it is difficult to view that the disposition of this case excessively deviates from and abused discretion on disciplinary action, and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

[Supplementary measures taken by the Prime Minister on June 30, 1998 and December 31, 2006] 4- 8 and 9 of the judgment of the first instance. “The plaintiff was awarded the Prime Minister’s commendation on June 30, 1998 and on two occasions before the disposition of this case.” The plaintiff was selected as an exemplary public official on June 30, 1998, before the disposition of this case, and was awarded the Prime Minister’s commendation on December 31, 2006.” The five to six acts in the judgment of the first instance, “Therefore, there is no minor disciplinary measures than the reprimand, and the criteria for disciplinary measures prescribed by the Rules of this case are not reasonable.” Thus, the disposition of this case conforms to the disciplinary measures prescribed by the Rules of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the criteria for such disciplinary measures are appropriate, and it cannot be deemed that the criteria for selecting the plaintiff to be subject to disciplinary action “the Prime Minister’s commendation of the first instance judgment’s award.”

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.