2. The Defendant’s reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on September 30, 2014 shall be revoked.

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a company that served as the 3rd education unit of B (hereinafter “instant company”). The Defendant, on September 30, 2014, after deliberation by the Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”), was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s violation of good faith (other) against the following Plaintiff’s act under the name of disciplinary action.

On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was a person working as the affiliated administrative distribution center, and was reported by G from Japanese soldiers in the office of administrative diffusion around 10:00. Moreover, around 11:30 on June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff’s act of assaulting D D’s three-day soldiers in the mid-term office of the mid-term commander at the mid-term commander’s office of general registry (hereinafter “the mid-term commander”). Moreover, the Plaintiff’s act of assaulting D’s three-day soldiers in the mid-term commander at around 1:30, 2014 only

The first report was made to the head of the instant company. After confirming the specific facts, “Around June 20, 2014, the head of the instant company, under the direction of the head of the instant company.” At around 18:00 on June 20, 2014, the Ministry of Personnel Affairs, the Head of the Personnel Affairs, under the direction of the head of the instant company, allowed the perpetrator G to face face with D and 3, the victim, and he/she again, one time again, “a third-party face-to-face.” At around 16:00 on June 27, 2014, the agreement was reached, and such an agreement was reached, and the head of the instant company does not clearly express the existence of the former facts in relation to the former.” In addition, in personnel affairs and personnel affairs around August 2014, the head of the personnel department did not know the fact at the time of investigating the facts of the said G, and did not violate his/her duty to report faithfully.”

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the Director of the Army Training Center on October 7, 2014, and the Director of the Army Training Center, on the ground that “The part of the facts subject to the examination, which did not report to the Director of the Personnel Department among those subject to the examination, is not suspected of suspicion, and reported to the Director of the Company, and the part that reported to the Director of the Company was reduced, is acknowledged.” As above, the Plaintiff’s remaining reprimand is mitigated.