1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows: ① (a), (b), (6), and (7) of the part in the judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part as described below; and thus, (b) of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted pursuant to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). (1) The executive officer of the company in the Gabasan has been provided with the right to freedom of venture in the Ma, etc. for publicity, and it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff requested or received money, valuables, or entertainment in connection with his/her duties (limited to the plaintiff's office).

In addition, there is no other evidence to reject the contents of the application, contrary to the reasons alleged by the Plaintiff, that C, a completion construction corporation, which had been near each other and had been aware of the long time, paid the amount of meal for the Plaintiff’s landing, or collected merchandise coupons on the Plaintiff’s own money, due to the circumstances like the Plaintiff’s assertion.

[2] The defendant joining the defendant asserts that the amount of money and entertainment received by the plaintiff is not significant (the defendant joining the defendant) [the amount of money and entertainment paid by the plaintiff is KRW 1,175,000, not KRW 663,850, not KRW 368,000, not KRW 663,850, not KRW 663,850, but KRW 1,175,000, which is the amount of money and entertainment provided by the plaintiff (the defendant joining the defendant). However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's disposition imposing disciplinary charges of KRW 663,850,00, which is imposed on the plaintiff, became final and conclusive.

[6] Article 2 (1) [Attachment 3] of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Rules on Disciplinary Action on Local Public Officials' Disciplinary Action, which provides or receives money or goods in accordance with the individual standards for disciplinary action.