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. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 17, 1990, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Grade Grade for the Prosecutor’s Office in Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office, and was promoted to the Grade for the Prosecutor’s Office on May 9, 2005, and was working in the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office in Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office since November 5, 2012, and was serving in the investigation division of the Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office from November 5, 2012.

The grounds for disciplinary action (the Plaintiff’s misconduct) occurred while serving in the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office around B, 201, the Plaintiff initially perused the investigation records of the case, such as occupational embezzlement in charge of Grade B of the same Prosecutor’s Office, and inquired out the contact details of Category C and D, which are the suspects of the case. From around that time to February 2, 201, the Plaintiff contacted the police officers of the case several times from that time to February 3, 2012. On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff would like to interfere with the case being investigated at the same restaurant called the EF located in the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, with the above meals and defects, and the above C and D were provided with the above meals of KRW 25,000,000 and KRW 30,000,000, KRW 25,0000, KRW 216,000 and KRW 20,000,00.

B. On July 8, 2013, the Daejeon High Prosecutors’ Office General Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee”) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee”) provides that the Plaintiff violated Article 63 (1) 1 and 78-2 (2) of the State Public Officials Act, and Articles 17 and 17-2 of the former Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24925, Dec. 11, 2013).