징벌처분무효등확인
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 13 years at the Incheon District Court for murder, etc., and the said sentence became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is confined in the first correctional institution from January 15, 2018 through several correctional institutions, such as the North Korean Peninsula, the third prison, and the Daegu prison.
B. On September 22, 2017, the Head of the Three Prisons in North Korea imposed disciplinary action on the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she violated Article 214 subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Punishment and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act”) by communicating the Plaintiff with another person without his/her permission.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.
The defendant is a prison officer who is in office in the third prison of the North Korean Peninsula.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading
2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s human rights and personality, and unfairly treated the Plaintiff without any reasonable ground.
Therefore, the defendant violates Article 4 (Respect for Human Rights) and Article 5 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the Execution of Punishment Act, Article 218 (Matters to be Observed at the time of investigation) of the Enforcement Rule, and Article 27 (Fair Treatment) of the Correctional Officers' Duties Rules, etc. Therefore, the plaintiff shall suspend the defendant's duties and claim disciplinary action against him.
In addition, the disposition of this case is made based on the defendant's illegal investigation and wrong facts based on them, so it should be revoked.
1) In the course of investigating the Plaintiff’s violation of discipline, the Defendant did not explain not only the substantive circumstances of the case, but also the reason behind investigating the Plaintiff. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff, who is unaware of English, in the disciplinary confinement zone, and investigated the Plaintiff’s violation of discipline. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not provided with sufficient opportunity to state his/her opinion. 2) Moreover, the Plaintiff illegally accepted correspondence.