1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on December 17, 2012 shall be taken for one month of suspension from office.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning 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.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's disciplinary action is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) The non-existence of a ground for disciplinary action is not a business handling fee but a monthly wage paid to C as living expenses, hospital expenses, or rent for the office of a special post office, but not a price for recommendation by the head of a post office.

The fees for performing the duties under Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Post Offices Act shall not be the grounds for disciplinary action even if the plaintiff has used the fees privately, as the fees for performing duties, unlike the expenses for performing duties under subparagraph 16 of the same Rule, which are paid for the purpose of performing

② Since a special post office established around 1962, in violation of the principle of trust protection, the head of the recommending bureau of the special post office pays a designee a fee for handling the business of the building and facilities as compensation for the construction of the building and facilities. Since the Defendant did not limit the use of the fee for handling the business prior to the instant case or point out the use for other purposes, the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of

③ Even if there were grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff even if the designees of a special post office were to provide the building and facilities of the post office, there is no separate compensation therefor; the Plaintiff used some of the fees for handling business as operating expenses of the post office; the Plaintiff used the fees for handling business after May 2010 for the operation of the post office without paying them to C; the Plaintiff faithfully performed duties without any disciplinary action after the appointment; and the Plaintiff used them for the operation of the post office; and the Plaintiff received official commendation as well as the performance of the post office.