The head of the second assistant military officer group;

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

A. From July 2, 2012 to September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff is an nursing assistant in the second militia group B, and from September 24, 2013 to September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff is an emergency medical technician appointed from the second militia group C as an emergency medical technician.

B. On November 18, 2014, the Defendant recognized the following disciplinary reasons to the Plaintiff, which was 1: 00 p.m. 4 p.m., on the ground that it constitutes a breach of duty as stipulated in Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On the ground of disciplinary action 1, the Plaintiff sent the victim’s 9th class D (34 years old) to E-ray and radiation company, and then rejected the victim’s 1 p.m. 7 p.m. 3 p. 4 p.m. 4 p.m. on the ground that the victim’s body was 4 p.m., and the victim was 3 p.m. 8 p.m. 4 p.m., the Plaintiff’s body at 0 p.m. 4 p.m., the Plaintiff was 1 p.m. and the victim’s body at 0 p.m. 8 p.m. 3 p.m., the Plaintiff reported the victim’s body.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion of illegality by mistake of facts

The instant disposition was unlawful as follows. (A) The victim of the Disciplinary Reason No. 1 did not have a fluencing period, and there was no fluorcing fact. However, on July 15, 2014, there was a flusing that the victim made a defect once, but only accepted the victim’s displeasure and simply simple meals.

B) Although Paragraph (2) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 2 stated that the Plaintiff, who visited a radiation-related office for the reason of his/her duties, caused sugar to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not say that the Plaintiff was imprudented by “Is the Plaintiff due to this sugar.”

C) Paragraph (3) of the Disciplinary Reason

At the time and place specified in Paragraph 3, the Plaintiff sent 3 to 4 times the shoulder, which means that she was frightened by the victim who expressed her friendship to a military unit, and that she was flicked by the victim, but she was flicked from the victim, who she again she was flicked by the victim, and she was flicked by her head, who was flicked by her head, and she returned to her office, and she was flicked by her head, and she did not say that she was flicked by the victim, and that she was flicked by her head, and that she was flicked by her head, and that she was flicked by the victim.

D) Paragraph (4) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 4 merely did not accept the victim’s application for leave in the course of performing the duty of normal leave in accordance with the commander’s guidelines, but did not constitute disciplinary action under Paragraph (4) of the Disciplinary Reason, and even if the Plaintiff made such remarks, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act of causing sexual humiliation and aversion to the average person.

E) Article 5-A of the Disciplinary Reason No. 5-A (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 5-A”), although the Plaintiff committed the act as referred to in the said Claim No. 5-A, the Plaintiff could be out of the combat clothes without the victim’s prior consent since the period during which the Plaintiff could have been removed from the inside as at the time of suspicion.

F) Article 5-2(b) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 5-2(b) of the Plaintiff heard her fluent fyt F’s her two fyt? her fyt her fyt her fyt her fyt her, and her fyt her fyt her fyt her fyt, but did not intend to cause sexual humiliation to

G) Article 5-3(3) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 5-3(b) of the Plaintiff was her friend with the victim's friend, but he heard the frithm "day" from the victim, which would be large if the victim 's frithm so sound, and frithly closed the frithm and frithly, which was unlawful due to the deviation and abuse of discretion. 2)

Even if the facts suspected of the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action are true, the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action is merely a matter of suspension from office or reduction of salary for 1 to 3 months in full view of the criteria for handling the violation of military discipline in the Army. In light of the trend of punishing the most severe suspension for 3 months in other cases, there is an error of deviation from and abuse of discretion in light of the principle of punishment for other cases.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

군인사법 제56조에 규정된 품위유지의무 위반 중 하나로서 육군규정 180 징계규정에 규정된 성군기 위반행위 중 ' 성희롱 ' 의 의미는 남녀고용평등과 일 · 가정 양립 지원에 관한 법률에서 규정한 ' 직장 내 성희롱 ' 에서 찾을 수 있다. 남녀고용평등과 일 · 가정양립 지원에 관한 법률 제2조 제2호에서 규정한 ' 직장 내 성희롱 ' 의 전제요건인 ' 성적인 언동 ' 이란 남녀 간의 육체적 관계나 남성 또는 여성의 신체적 특징과 관련된 육체적, 언어적, 시각적 행위로서 사회공동체의 건전한 상식과 관행에 비추어 볼 때 객관적으로 상대방과 같은 처지에 있는 일반적이고도 평균적인 사람에게 성적 굴욕감이나 혐오감을 느끼게 할 수 있는 행위를 의미한다. 나아가 위 규정상의 성희롱이 성립하기 위해서는 행위자에게 반드시 성적 동기나 의도가 있어야 하는 것은 아니지만, 당사자의 관계, 행위가 행해진 장소 및 상황, 행위에 대한 상대방의 명시적 또는 추정적인 반응의 내용, 행위의 내용 및 정도, 행위가 일회적 또는 단기간의 것인지 아니면 계속적인 것인지 여부 등의 구체적 사정을 참작하여 볼 때, 객관적으로 상대방과 같은 처지에 있는 일반적이고도 평균적인 사람으로 하여금 성적 굴욕감이나 혐오감을 느낄 수 있게 하는 행위가 있고, 그로 인하여 행위의 상대방이 성적 굴욕감이나 혐오감을 느꼈음이 인정되어야 한다 ( 대법원 2008. 7. 10. 선고 2007두22498 판결 취지 참조 ) . 2 ) 징계사유가 인정되는지 여부에 대한 판단을 제1, 3, 6호증의 각 기재, 증인 D의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 원고가 2013. 7. 1. 이후부터 2013. 8. 31. 경까지 위 부대 E대 방사선과의 방사선사로 전입하여 온 군무원 9급 D를 매일 찾아가 ' 놀아주세요. 데이트 한 번 해야죠. 밥 한 끼먹읍시다 ' 라고 말하여 D가 상당히 부담스러워 한 사실, 원고가 2013. 7. 말경 D에게 ' 이러다 밥 한끼 못 먹겠으니 오늘 저녁에 꼭 보자 ' 고 말하자, D가 ' 한 번만 밥을 같이 먹으면 더 이상 그런 말을 하지 않겠지 ' 라는 생각으로 억지로 식사를 함께 한 사실 ( 징계사유 제1항 ), ② 원고가 2013. 7. 경 방사선과 사무실에서 D와 훈련병들이 방사선 촬영을 하기 위하여 올 때 주기 위하여 비치해둔 사탕에 대하여 이야기하면서 ' 이 사탕으로 저를 유혹해보세요 ' 라고 말한 사실 ( 징계사유 제2항 ), ③ 원고가 2013. 7. 하순부터 2013. 8. 초순 사이에 방사선과 사무실에서 의자에 앉아 업무를 보고 있던 D의 등 뒤에서 D의 승낙을 받지 않은 채 어깨를 3 ~ 5회 가량 주물렀고, 이에 D가 몸을 움츠리면서 ' 왜 이러세요 ' 라고 말하며 몸을 피하자 ' 왜 과민반응을 보이냐 ' 고 말한 사실 ( 징계사유 제3항 ), ④ 원고가 2014. 7. 28. 14 : 00경 방사선과 사무실에 들어가 의자에 앉으면서 D의 동의 없이 전투복 상의를 탈의하여 속옷만 입은 상태가 된 사실, 당시 위 부대의 지침상 혹서기에는 군복 상의 대신 디지털 무늬의 반팔 티셔츠를 입을 수는 있었으나 속옷이나 흰 티셔츠만 입는 것은 허용되지 않은 사실 ( 징계사유 제5의 가. 항 ), ⑤ 원고가 2014. 7. 28. 오후경 방사선과 사무실에서 D와 업무 관련 대화를 하던 도중 하사 F가 방사선과에 들어오자 ' 야 데이트 중이니까 빨리 문 닫고 나가 ' 라고 말하였고 이에 D가 ' 요즘 세상이 어떤 세상인데 그런 농담을 하십니까. 큰일납니다 ' 라고 말하자 원고는 ' 왜 오버하십니까 ' 라고 말한 사실 ( 징계사유 제5의 나. 항 ), ⑥ 같은 날 16 : 40경 촬영이 모두 끝난 피해자가 ' 어. 벌써 시간이 이렇게 되었네 ' 라고 말하는 것을 듣고 원고가 D에게 ' 외로워서 그러는 거에요. 외로워서 ' 라고 말하여 D가 불쾌해 한 사실 ( 징계사유 제5의 다. 항 ) 을 인정할 수 있다 .

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s above remarks and actions were judged to be an act of causing sexual humiliation and aversion to the other party objectively. In fact, the Plaintiff stated that the victim suffered sexual humiliation.

However, according to the evidence in relation to Paragraph 4 of the Disciplinary Reason, when the Plaintiff resisted D's leave without prior notice on August 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff is able to support the competent authorities in the future without holding any office in the future. All things are considered to be a mail, but it is difficult to view the above speech and behavior as an act that may cause a general and average person to feel sexual humiliation or a sense of aversion. 3) The judgment on whether the above speech and behavior deviates from or abused discretion (which is adequate to take disciplinary action)

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the person subject to disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to have abused the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure since the disciplinary measure as the exercise of the authority significantly lacks validity under the social norms, the measure is unlawful. In addition, in order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the contents and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to achieve the disciplinary measure, the criteria for a disciplinary measure, etc. should be considered to be clearly and objectively unreasonable depending on the specific cases, and the contents of the disciplinary measure can be deemed to have been objectively and clearly unreasonable. In addition, if the disciplinary measure is not recognized partially among several disciplinary grounds, but it is sufficient to recognize the validity of the disciplinary measure only with some other grounds recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du620, Sep. 24

However, even if the husband married to D and served in the rank of the military for several months, the plaintiff found D every day in the office where D had been working, and caused D to feel sexual humiliation or humiliation by doing a sexual speech and behavior several times, or evading military uniforms. In light of the frequency and degree of violation of the duty to maintain dignity due to the above sexually military violation, even if the misconduct is light, it constitutes gross negligence. This is difficult to view that the measure of this case should be imposed on D's civilian personnel in the military service by imposing one step more than the above criteria for the determination of the disciplinary action of the Ministry of National Defense, based on the criteria for the violation of attached Table 4-53 of the Ministry of National Defense's Regulation on Disciplinary Measures of the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees. However, even if the victim's civilian personnel in the military was female, it is difficult to view that the measure of this case should be taken objectively against the plaintiff as the abuse of the discretionary authority of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Jin-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.