2. On July 8, 2016, the Defendant’s “person subject to sound or visual meeting” with respect to the Plaintiff, and the person subject to sound or visual meeting.

A. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to seven years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (homicide by an organization, etc.) and three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of extortion. While the sentence became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff is a convicted prisoner who was transferred to the one prison from July 8, 2016 to the one prison from North Korea (hereinafter “instant prison”).

B. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff’s transfer to the instant prison, pursuant to Article 104(1) of the former Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (amended by Act No. 14281, Dec. 2, 2016); Articles 194, 199(1), and 211(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Execution Act; Article 16(1) of the Guidelines for Safe Guard (Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 974, Jan. 13, 2015); and at the same time, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as a person subject to strict management (person subject to serious control, organized violence), and one-day observation; and at the same time, the record of “persons subject to meeting” for meeting and video recording pursuant to Article 41(2)1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Punishment Execution Act; Article 62(1) and 149(2) and 15(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Punishment Act.

(Disposition of this case shall be referred to as the "disposition of this case", and a correctional officer's participation at the time of meeting with prisoners and the recording of the contents of meeting shall be referred to as "measures restricting meeting" (hereinafter referred to as "measures restricting meeting").

From July 14, 2016, when the Plaintiff’s first meeting was conducted according to the instant disposition, a correctional officer’s participation at all times in the meeting of the Plaintiff and a correctional officer’s restriction on meeting to listen to and record and video record the contents of the meeting.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, 10, 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Each subparagraph of Article 41(2) of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 provides that “A prisoner’s meeting is temporarily heard and recorded in the prison warden.”