2. A. Article 57 of the Military Personnel Management Act was amended by Act No. 5267 of Jan. 13, 1997, and the reduction of salary corresponding to a heavy disciplinary action was revised to constitute a minor disciplinary action in preparation for the provisions of Article 57 concerning the types of disciplinary action before and after the enforcement of the same year from April 14, 1997. Article 58 of the Act on Persons with Authority for Disciplinary Action was partially changed. Meanwhile, Article 7 of the revised Act (amended by Act No. 58) provides that "If disciplinary action is in progress at the time this Act enters into force, a disciplinary action which is under disciplinary action shall be governed by the previous provisions, notwithstanding Articles 57 and 58." Thus, the disciplinary action following the examination of discharge and discharge from active service differs in terms of the purpose of and reasons for the provision, the composition and subject of the committee's disciplinary action, and thus, the new disciplinary action procedure should be applied to the judgment of disciplinary action at the time of discharge from active service unless there are special provisions for the new disciplinary action.

Therefore, since the new law has already been implemented at the time of the examination for discharge from active service, even if the reduction of salary corresponding to a severe disciplinary measure was made under the provision at the time of the disciplinary action, it should be viewed as a minor disciplinary measure in accordance with the new law in examining discharge from active service under the new law.

Furthermore, Article 7 of the Addenda to the new Act provides that the previous provision shall apply to the treatment of disciplinary cases, which are in progress at the time of the enforcement of the new Act, and the type of disciplinary action and the person having authority over disciplinary action, but the previous provision shall apply to continue disciplinary proceedings as prescribed by the previous Act, and it is not a provision to the effect that the examination of discharge from active service under the new Act shall be deemed a severe disciplinary action, and it is not a provision to the effect that Article 7 of the Addenda exists.

B. In addition, Article 37 (1) 2 of the New Act, Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the New Act, Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the New Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Defense No. 480 of Feb. 21, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") delegated with regard to the criteria for active duty service, examination, or other necessary matters shall be referred to the Investigation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Investigation Committee") for the following persons and shall be subject to investigation as to whether they fall under the criteria for inappropriate persons prescribed in Article 56, while subparagraph 2 should be referred to the Investigation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Investigation Committee"), Article 57 (1) 5 provides that those who are subject to disciplinary action shall be referred to the "person who is deemed unfit to be discharged from active duty service", and Article 58 (1) of the Enforcement Decree provides that all unfit persons shall be referred to the Investigation Committee for investigation as prescribed in subparagraph 1 through 5 of Article 56, and Article 58 (1) provides that those persons who fall under subparagraph 5 or 57 shall immediately be referred to the Investigation Committee:

3. In light of the above provisions and legal principles, the court below determined that it was not illegal to make a decision on the discharge from active service that the Plaintiff’s salary reduction disposition constitutes a severe disciplinary measure without investigation and resolution by the Investigation Committee. However, on the other hand, the Army Headquarters Review Committee, the Army Chief of Staff, who received a report of inappropriate persons from the head of the Army Academy, who is a military unit commander belonging to the Plaintiff, submitted the Plaintiff to the Army Headquarters Review Committee, and it can be deemed that the Army Chief of Staff recognized the Plaintiff as inappropriate and referred the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 57 subparag. 5 and Article 58(2) of the Rules. Accordingly, the court below determined that the decision of the court below was not illegal to make a decision on the discharge from active service that the Plaintiff was discharged from active service without investigation and resolution by the Investigation Committee, and the interpretation of Article 57 of the Rules is not erroneous.

Therefore, the lower court’s error did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, rejected all of the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)