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 court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the attached statutes as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] The 16th parallel 10 to 20th parallels in the first instance judgment are as follows.

In the case of disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, what kind of disposition should be given to the person subject to disciplinary action at the discretion of the person with disciplinary authority.

However, the disciplinary action as the exercise of discretionary power is illegal only when it is recognized that the disciplinary action which the person with authority to take disciplinary action has abused the discretion of the person with authority to take disciplinary action.

In addition, in order for a disciplinary action against a public official to have remarkably lost validity under the social norms, the content and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc. should be considered as cases where it can be objectively and objectively deemed that the disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6620 Decided September 24, 2002, and 2002Du11813 Decided November 12, 2004). In addition, even if there is an act falling under the grounds for disciplinary action, whether the person having authority to take an action is subject to disciplinary action against the person having authority to take an action, and what kind of disciplinary action is subject to disciplinary action, are left at the discretion of the person having authority to take an action.

However, the exercise of discretion is against the purpose of granting the right of disciplinary action, or is against the principle of proportionality or the principle of fairness being applied to the same degree of flight without reasonable grounds.