1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following portions that are stated in this case. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The dismissal 14th 3th 14th 2th 2th 14th 2th 3th 2th 2th 3th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 2th 3th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 3th 2th 2006. The 1st 3th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 20

However, in order for a disciplinary action to have remarkably lost validity under the social norms, the content and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, administrative purpose intended to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for the determination of the disciplinary action, etc. should be considered as cases where it can be objectively and objectively recognized that the disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant disciplinary action taken during the three-month period of suspension from office is more severe than the degree of the Plaintiff’s misconduct, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the facts and records of trial as seen earlier, based on the aforementioned legal principles: (a) the instant disciplinary action for the three-month period of suspension from office is more severe than the degree of the Plaintiff’s misconduct.

It is difficult to regard it as an illegal disposition that goes against the principle of proportionality and is beyond the limits of discretion.

① As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is aware of the guidelines in the instant case that “The Plaintiff shall minimize external activities and implement them after obtaining approval for participation in external activities.” The Plaintiff, while carrying out personal shopping without permission or 15 times under the pretext of social gatherings by class.