직업훈련불허결정처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
According to the records, on December 14, 200, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Gwangju High Court for the improvement of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes after sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special robbery) and the completion of the execution of imprisonment for a period of 7 years for a period of imprisonment, from March 15, 2012 to the third prison of the North Korean region. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for the improvement of the Act on the Execution and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates (hereinafter “instant decision”) to enable the Defendant to receive vocational training and foreign language education. On November 26, 2014, the Defendant may not transfer the Plaintiff to another institution that conducts vocational training or foreign language education on the ground that “the transfer of the Plaintiff to another institution that is in exclusive charge of the North Korean region, etc. to the North Korean region,” and the Plaintiff can dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition (hereinafter “instant decision”).
The right to petition under Article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Act is merely a right of a prisoner to state his/her opinion or wish on treatment to the defendant, etc., and to urge the defendant, etc. to take the measures against the above matters. Thus, whether the defendant, etc. accepted the petition and to take specific measures shall belong to the discretion of the defendant, etc., and the petition shall be dismissed and shall not affect the rights and obligations of the petitioner and other legal relations. Thus, the result of review and treatment of the petition shall not be deemed an
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1458 delivered on May 25, 1990). Thus, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant decision is unlawful and there is no way to correct its defects. Thus, it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.