근신처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff served as the Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Second Lieutenant (Subrogation).
B. On September 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she has breached his/her duty to maintain dignity as follows:
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). From April 20, 2018, from around 19:00 to around 19:00, a person subject to disciplinary action against a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (Assault) exercised the type of mutual body between E and E, i.e., the person subject to disciplinary action, by dividing three and three including House E, and four and four soldiers, including House E, from the restaurant located in Gangseo-gu, Suwon-gun, and the same day.
Therefore, the subject of disciplinary action violated the duty to maintain dignity by assaulting Staff E, a member of the same military unit.
C. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition on October 4, 2018, but the Discipline Appeal Committee dismissed the said appeal on January 3, 2019.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion (non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action) did not constitute violence against E.
The plaintiff was faced with the wind of E, and the plaintiff was only able to have a lare in order not to go beyond the wind of E.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and E’s initial statement alleged to recognize the facts subject to the instant disciplinary action do not have credibility in light of the circumstances leading up to the statement, such statement alone cannot be deemed to have sufficiently proven the facts subject to the instant disciplinary action.
B. In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be seen by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff is punished for E and franchis as stated in the facts subject to the disciplinary action of this case, and the body of the Plaintiff, such as franchising.