2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, who was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment due to the crime of special robbery, was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the said nine-year period from August 7, 2018 to October 5, 2018, and was punished by a fine of nine days from the Defendant on August 17, 2018.

B. On September 18, 2018, correctional officers, who were employed by the prison, inspected the prison room in which the Plaintiff was admitted. During the process of the examination of the Plaintiff’s goods, the correctional officers revealed that the Plaintiff’s goods include “unlawfully engaged owners (the two parallels connected to each other, so called a rewing mold)” and “T Shirts” that exceeded the standard of possession of personal belongings.

C. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 107 Subparag. 6 and Article 109(2)2 of the former Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (amended by Act No. 16345, Apr. 23, 2019; hereinafter “former Execution Act”) and Article 214 Subparag. 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act”), the Defendant included the period of 10 days for the period of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on October 2, 2018 following the resolution of the Disciplinary Committee, and the actual period of disciplinary action was 3 days from October 2, 2018 to October 4, 2018.

disciplinary action was taken.

(hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] : (a) the absence of dispute; (b) each entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 214 subparag. 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Execution Act, which is a basis statute for the instant disposition, violates the principle of clarity and violates the principle of excessive prohibition, and thus is not effective. Therefore, the instant disposition is invalid as a disposition based on the foregoing provision of the Enforcement Rule without validity. (2) The prosecutor of the dwelling room located in September 18, 2018, was a retaliation test aimed at responding to the Plaintiff’s accusation against the Defendant, and possessed goods without permission.