2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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 of an organization, etc.), and three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “instant prison”). The sentence becomes final and conclusive, and was transferred from July 8, 2016 to the North Korean Prison 1 (hereinafter “instant prison”) and is under confinement.

B. On July 8, 2016, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as “persons subject to video recording and persons subject to participation to listen to the records of meeting” pursuant to Article 41(2)1 and 3 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Execution Act”) and Article 149(2)2 and Article 150(1)4 of the Guidelines on the Management of Correctional Institution Inmates (Rules of the Ministry of Justice, January 13, 2015).

(hereinafter “Disposition” recognized the nature of “disposition” subject to appeal litigation in Supreme Court Decision 2013Du20899 Decided December 13, 2014 regarding the same act of designation as the instant disposition.

From July 14, 2016, when the Plaintiff’s first meeting was conducted according to the instant disposition, a correctional officer participated in the Plaintiff’s meeting without a separate instruction from the Defendant, and listened to, recorded and recorded the details of the meeting at all times.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 41(2) of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 provides that the right to temporarily listen to, record, record, or video record the contents of meeting of prisoners to the warden of a prison shall be granted to the warden of a prison, and there is no provision that the warden of a prison may designate a special prisoner and impose a restriction on meeting for a long time, anywhere in the relevant statutes, such as the Act on the Execution of Punishment and Punishment, etc., so the instant disposition violates the principle of statutory reservation. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not have been confined to the instant prison for a long time and was living under confinement without an accident, thereby running a prison life without an accident.