[2] The case holding that the above disciplinary measure cannot be viewed as a loss of objective legitimacy to the extent that it has lost objective legitimacy just because it was notified of the disciplinary measure by an official assistant principal who is not a prison warden in violation of Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act

[3] The case holding that the measure which the prison warden rejected a meeting with the person subject to disciplinary punishment and the attorney-at-law during the period of forfeiture violates the right to interview and the right to trial of the person subject to disciplinary punishment

[2] The case holding that the above disciplinary measure cannot be deemed to have lost objective legitimacy as long as it should bear the responsibility for compensating for damages to the state on the ground that the disciplinary measure was notified of by an official assistant principal who is not a prison warden in violation of Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act

[3] The case holding that even though whether to grant permission for meeting during the period of custody belongs to the discretionary act of the prison warden, if the person subject to punishment wishes to meet with an attorney-at-law who has the authority to file a lawsuit as proxy for the purpose of contesting the disposition of custody itself, this constitutes "where it is deemed particularly necessary for treatment, which is an exceptional reason for permission for meeting" under Article 145 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act, and in light of all other circumstances, the measure that the prison warden rejected meeting with the person subject to punishment and the attorney during the period of custody violates the right to interview and the right to a trial of the person subject to punishment

A. On October 7, 199, the Plaintiff was sentenced to three years from the Chuncheon District Court to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and thus, the Plaintiff was in prison in the Ansan Prison. On March 12, 2001, the head of the Ansan Prison was subject to a disciplinary measure for one month of a fine due to verbal abuse to a correctional officer and non-compliance with a correctional officer’s instructions, etc., and was transferred to the Daegu Prison on April 9, 2001 during the period of the fine.

B. On May 28, 2001, after the Plaintiff was transferred to Daegu prison, the Plaintiff prepared a written application for permission to prepare an administrative appeal in order to file an administrative appeal against the above order. On May 30, 2001, the Plaintiff requested Nonparty 1, who was under the custody of the court, to substitute the written application for the administrative appeal and received the written application from Nonparty 1 from the Plaintiff and delivered the written application (hereinafter referred to as “instant written application for administrative appeal”). The Plaintiff, along with the written application for permission, requested the competent prison officer to submit the original and copy of the written application for administrative appeal and one copy of the written application to the competent prison officer, but the instant written application for administrative appeal was not sent to the Ministry of Justice.

C. On August 28, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Minister of Justice on the ground that “the instant written administrative appeal was submitted, but not processed, and the prison officer did not confirm whether the instant written administrative appeal was received, and the officer in charge submitted an interview with the director of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Union several times to verify whether the correspondence was sent, and it does not confirm whether the correspondence was sent.”

D. The plaintiff had been exchanged with Kim Young-young, who had been working for the Love for Human Rights Campaign, but on September 13, 2001, the plaintiff received 14 statements from Kim Young-young to the effect that "the person in charge of correctional officers confirmed the application for the administrative appeal of this case and returned it to the plaintiff without sending it to the Ministry of Justice." On September 14, 2001 to September 18, 2001, on the ground that there was a picture that "the plaintiff received a letter," and the plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure of 2-month from the head of the Daegu Prison on September 21, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the monetary measure of this case").

E. On October 8, 2001, an abnormal attorney-at-law requested the head of Daegu Prison to allow the plaintiff to have an interview on the ground of unfair treatment that the plaintiff was suffered in prison because the officer in charge failed to send the written request for administrative appeal, which resulted in a problem in the course of responding to the plaintiff's refusal to send it to the Daegu Prison." However, the head of Daegu Correctional Institution rejected the plaintiff's request for an interview on the ground that the plaintiff was suffered in prison (hereinafter referred to as "measures to refuse the interview") on the ground that the plaintiff was in prison period.

F. On December 6, 2001, after the expiration of the period of forfeiture stipulated in the instant gold disposition, the Plaintiff met with an attorney-at-law. On the other hand, on December 29, 2001, the Minister of Justice decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s petition cannot be acknowledged as the Plaintiff’s assertion through an investigation on the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal claim, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who was a prisoner with the same custody, who was an inmate, and Nonparty 2, who is a prison officer in charge, and Defendant released him from the Daegu prison on January 6, 2002.

2. We examine the first ground for appeal.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 11, 15 through 20 (each letter), Eul evidence No. 17 (each part of the investigation document, the plaintiff's testimony) and the evidence adopted as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, such as non-party 3's testimony, the court below held that the non-party 1 prepared two copies of the original and copy of the written request for administrative appeal of this case by the plaintiff's request on May 30, 201, and delivered two copies to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not send them to the Ministry of Justice without the permission of the court below (the non-party 1's statement of this case) and the non-party 1's evidence No. 7 (the non-party 1's statement of this case's non-party 2's statement of this case's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's explanation or non-party 3' statement of this case's reasons.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s aforementioned evidence cooking and fact-finding.

In light of the evidence adopted by the court below and the records, the plaintiff's aforementioned testimony and fact-finding by the court below were submitted as evidence No. 1 to the non-party 1, which is the same as the plaintiff's testimony at the time of the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff's testimony at the time of the plaintiff's testimony at the court below or the non-party 3's testimony at the court below's testimony, which is the same as that of the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's new evidence.

Therefore, the court below should dismiss the above dismissed evidence on the ground that it is difficult to believe it merely, employ the above adopted evidence, and find facts as stated in its reasoning prior to finding the above adopted evidence, more carefully judged the credibility of the evidence, and subsequently decided the evidence preparation and fact-finding. However, the court below did not reach the above evidence preparation and fact-finding. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. We examine the second ground for appeal.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act provides that the head of the relevant prison shall be sentenced to disciplinary punishment, in this case, the plaintiff is not sentenced to the monetary disposition of this case by the head of the relevant Daegu prison and is notified of the disciplinary contents from the head of the relevant Daegu prison without being sentenced to the monetary disposition of this case, and there is no dispute between the parties. The legislative purport of the above provision is to limit "the person who has been sentenced to disciplinary punishment" to the head of the relevant prison, not a general prison officer or an intermediate manager, but to the head of the relevant prison, and to ensure the appropriateness of the disciplinary procedure and protect the human rights of the person subject to disciplinary punishment by having the head of the relevant prison explain the disciplinary contents directly in the presence of the person subject to disciplinary punishment. Therefore, the monetary disposition of this case notified by the head of the relevant prison, not the head of the relevant Daegu prison, is unlawful in the procedural aspect, and it is reasonable to deem that

B. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

As stated in the judgment below, the imposition of disciplinary punishment of this case against the provisions of Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act, which is not the head of Daegu prison. Even if the imposition of disciplinary punishment of this case is unlawful in the procedural aspect, the court below decided that the plaintiff was not the head of the Daegu prison, but the defendant's non-affiliated prison officer's non- Daegu prison officer's non-affiliated prison officer's non-affiliated prison officer's non-affiliated prison officer's non-affiliated prison officer's non-compliance with the investigation and disciplinary measure's non-compliance with the above disciplinary measure's intent and negligence should be considered in light of the contents of the disciplinary measure, his opinion, and the progress of the investigation and disciplinary measure's resolution of the disciplinary committee's non-gu prison officer's non-affiliated prison officer's non-permanent prison officer's non-conforming prison officer's non-compliance with the defendant's non-compliance with the duty to compensate for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da3789, 33819, Nov. 27, 2001>

Therefore, the court below's decision that recognized the State's liability for reasons of illegality in the procedural aspect of the gold disposition in this case is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the requirements for establishing the State's liability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. We examine the third ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 145 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act prohibits meeting of a person subject to disciplinary punishment for whom a prison term is in a closed term, and exceptionally, "where deemed necessary for edification or treatment," the head of the prison may permit such meeting. Although whether to permit meeting during a closed term belongs to the discretionary act of the head of the prison, if the person subject to disciplinary punishment wishes to meet with an attorney who has the authority to file a lawsuit for the purpose of dispute over the disposition of a closed term itself, this constitutes "where deemed especially necessary for treatment," which is an exceptional reason for permission. Further, in order to guarantee the plaintiff's right to appeal against the disposition of a closed term under the Criminal Administration Act and subordinate statutes, it is necessary to allow the plaintiff to have an interview with an attorney at least for objection to the disposition of a closed term, and in light of the above fact, the court below determined that the plaintiff's request for an interview with the head of the prison and the defendant's opinion to the extent that it could not have been allowed for the plaintiff's request for an unlawful interview.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

5. Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the amount of consolation money due to an illegal act committed by the head of Daegu prison without notifying the grounds for rejection of the issuance of the written request for administrative appeal of this case, and partly accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case by designating three million won for consolation money due to an illegal act, such as illegality in the procedure of the gold disposition of this case which was not declared directly by the head of Daegu prison, or illegality in the measure of denial of meeting rights and the right to trial of this case which infringed upon the attorney-at-law. Of the part against the defendant of the judgment below, the part of the judgment below against the defendant of this case which did not notify the grounds for rejection of the dispatch of the written request for administrative appeal of this case and did not confirm the result of the receipt thereof, the part against the defendant cannot be identified separately from the claim due to procedural

6. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)