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

A. On May 25, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury by deadly weapons, etc.) and the sentence became final and conclusive, and was confined to Kimcheon Juvenile Reformatory, and was recommended by correctional officers C, who are employees of the Defendant, to seek visibility from other prisoners in the same correctional institution, on May 25, 2014. On the 27th of the same month, the Plaintiff was discovered to have delivered the visibility purchased by the Plaintiff to D through C, and received notification of execution of disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff received notification of the execution of disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

B. On August 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disciplinary measure. On November 17, 2014, the Daegu Regional Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

C. Meanwhile, on April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for invalidation with respect to the instant disciplinary measure and obtained approval from the Minister of Justice on April 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The execution of the instant disciplinary measure was completed.

Even if the disposition is remaining externally and is likely to be excluded from or disadvantageous to the review subject to parole in the future, there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disciplinary measure of this case. ② The plaintiff is a person living under confinement and constitutes a violation of this case since the correctional officer's instruction cannot be refused. Therefore, it is unlawful for the plaintiff to take the disciplinary measure on

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant disciplinary measure was merely “a warning,” and the enforcement of the instant disciplinary measure has already been completed, and there was no provision that limits the rights of prisoners or imposes obligations on prisoners on prisoners on the grounds that the relevant statutes have been subjected to disciplinary measure.