1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the first instance except for adding the following judgments to the defendant's assertion, and thus, it is reasonable to accept the reasoning of the judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition in accordance with the above strengthened criteria for disciplinary action is lawful, inasmuch as the instant disciplinary action is implemented on October 6, 2015, prior to the request for disciplinary proceedings against the Plaintiff, which strengthened the criteria for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, which was higher than the suspension of duty, the criteria for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

According to the records of evidence No. 28, the defendant, on October 6, 2015, recognized the fact that the standard of disciplinary action on the agency shooting, etc. was strengthened to the heavy disciplinary action.

However, the criteria for disciplinary action are as follows: ① Act of a proxy shooting (if a person acts as a proxy at the request or commission of another person), ② Act of changing or intentional manipulation (the act of false entry of personal matters, overlaps with a studio), ③ other unlawful methods such as shooting (the act of a nearby shooting in violation of the prescribed shooting distance, intentionally shooting in another person's stample, shooting above designated number of shooting, and unfairly raising points by violating the grading method). However, the first disciplinary ground for disciplinary action against the plaintiff is not recognized, and the second disciplinary ground for disciplinary action is not recognized, and it is recognized only that the plaintiff signed as a proxy shooting with the knowledge of his stample, etc.

Therefore, even if the above strengthened disciplinary action is based on the criteria for the disciplinary action, the defendant is entitled to the principle of proportionality by choosing excessive disciplinary action, which is excessive compared to the plaintiff's degree of flight.