1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2015 is three months of suspension from office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the Department C at the National University on September 1, 201, and was promoted as an assistant professor on September 1, 201, and as an associate professor on September 1, 2013, respectively.

B. D (EEs, hereinafter “victims”) was a female student who was studying in B University on September 2012, and was appointed as a guidance professor and completed C’s master course.

C. On December 19, 2014, the victim reported that he/she was subject to sexual harassment from the Plaintiff to a counseling center for sexual harassment against B University (hereinafter “counseling center”) after having declineded from the examination of the master’s degree thesis.

Around September to October 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) had a counseling center’s investigation procedure; and (b) had the Plaintiff undergo an academic event to follow the surgery from 2-3 to 2-3 of the new wall when the victim wants to have his clothes locked.

(2) Around September 10, 2013 to October 10, 2013, the victim had completed meals at a non-permanent-type limited house after the academic event. The Plaintiff urged G students to call the phone and demanded two non-victims to follow the drinking to the Plaintiff, and the Japanese professor and the Plaintiff to follow the drinking on the spot. In that place, the victim was forced to sit the female employees of the drinking house and was able to take a broad bridge.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Second Disciplinary Action”). On April 27, 2015, following a resolution by the General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials at B University, the following disposition was rendered against the Plaintiff for three months of suspension from office on the ground that the grounds for disciplinary action constituted a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (Article 51 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Articles 78(1) and 63 of the State Public Officials Act).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Appeal Committee for Teachers, but was dismissed on June 24, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 26, 43, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense.