징벌처분취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 26, 2011, the Plaintiff was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment for murder, etc., and was transferred to a permanent prison on February 1, 2017.
B. On September 4, 2017, around 12:40 on September 4, 2017, the Plaintiff, at the 3rd workplace of a permanent correctional institution, had a dispute with the prisoner B, and for about 5 minutes, the number of visitors in the surrounding area was gathered, and the dispute was interrupted while the Plaintiff and B were b.
C. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a 10-day disposition against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 214 Subparag. 14 and Article 215 Subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Enforcement of Punishment and Treatment of Prisoners (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff committed an act significantly interfering with the peaceful confinement life of other prisoners by putting the Plaintiff a large sound or slick,” and the execution of the instant disposition was completed on the same day.
On November 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was transferred to Adong prison.
E. The statutes related to the disposition of this case are as shown in the attached Form.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1, 2, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.
1) The Plaintiff’s act of hearing the horses of the Plaintiff et al. from B and raising the words of the Plaintiff et al., but such act was filed within a short period of time due to the occurrence of relatively short cleaning hours in Busan, and did not significantly interfere with the peaceful prison life of other prisoners, and thus does not constitute a violation of regulations. 2) It is deemed that the Plaintiff committed an act of remarkably interfering with the peaceful prison life of other prisoners by causing a large noise or slickness of the Plaintiff.