접견입회대상자지정처분취소
1. On April 23, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of continuing the designation of a person who participated in meetings to the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a four-year term for fraud, etc. at the Ulsan District Court. On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the said sentence became final and conclusive.
On October 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was bound by fraud, etc. in the Ulsan Detention House. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was transferred to the North Korean Port Correctional Institution, which was later transferred to the North Korean Prison on June 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant prison”). The instant prison was under execution of the said sentence in the instant prison until now.
B. On July 27, 2016, the head of the Ulsan Detention House: (a) designated the Plaintiff as the subject of meeting participation for the purpose of listening to, recording, recording and video recording of the details of meeting pursuant to Article 41(2)1 and 3 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”); and (b) Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.
(hereinafter referred to as "designation of persons subject to participation in the meeting").
On the other hand, on April 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the person who participated in the meeting for the following reasons.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff needs to grasp a detailed attitude to maintain the security and order of the facility as a person who is highly likely to engage in corruption through external contacts, such as intending to see himself/herself with a false content on a continuous basis and obtain monetary benefits by brushing his/her prisoners, etc.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. According to the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 and Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, a warden may exceptionally allow a correctional officer to participate in an interview with prisoners and listen to, record, record, or video record the contents of the meeting, only when meeting special requirements prescribed by the Act.
However, even though the plaintiff does not fall under all the grounds for exception prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, the defendant has to live in prison of this case for more than one year.