1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or addition as follows. Thus, this case is quoted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance court in which the amendment is made shall be amended to "B" March 19, 2014.

Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted "the degree of vision is severe and gross negligence, or" in Part 4-5.

3. The addition;

가. 원고의 주장 피고의 ‘성폭력 등 징계처분 현황(2010.∽2015.)’에 비추어 보더라도 원고에 대한 이 사건 처분은 평등의 원칙 내지 형평에 반한 것으로 객관적으로 명백히 부당하고 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 재량권을 일탈남용하였으므로 위법하다.

B. Discriminatory treatment in the selection and determination of the kind of disciplinary action is not a reasonable discrimination depending on the nature of the case, and it does not go against the principle of equality or the principle of equity, as it does not go against the principle of equality.

(대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2005두6447 판결, 대법원 2008. 6. 26. 선고 2008두6387 판결, 대법원 2012. 6. 28. 선고 2011두20994 판결 등 참조). 살피건대, 피고가 제출한 ‘성폭력 등 징계처분 현황(2010.∽2015.)’에 의하면, 피고는 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(업무상위력등에의한추행), 강제추행, 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영) 등의 비위행위에 대하여 각 강등의 징계처분을 한 바가 있는 사실은 인정되나, 을 제6호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 비위사실은...