1. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on December 16, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff served in the B brigade as the small Army Order.

On December 16, 2016, the Defendant was subject to disciplinary action for one month of suspension from office due to the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, the violation of the duty to maintain dignity (or violence), the violation of the duty to maintain dignity (or abuse of authority), the violation of the duty to maintain dignity (or other violation of the provisions on security relations), and the violation of the duty to maintain confidentiality (or other violation of the provisions on security relations)

On May 26, 2017, the Minister of National Defense appealed against the plaintiff and appealed, and the Minister of National Defense decided that the facts subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff were identical to the decision of the appeal in the attached Form, and reduced the disciplinary action against the plaintiff for three months.

(1) Article 20 of the Disciplinary Rule of the Army Act provides that "where a member directly investigates a case subject to disciplinary action," a disciplinary commissioner shall be excluded from the grounds for disciplinary action, and the plaintiff prepared a written statement after being investigated by He/she was a personnel staff member, and the above D participated as a disciplinary commissioner of the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is unlawful in the disciplinary procedure.

The non-existence of the facts subject to disciplinary action does not have any desire for victim operational officer E in the attached Form, and the plaintiff merely asked the F of the victim education officer F on leave whether he/she can enter the time more than the time of return by leaving the phone, and did not compel him/her to return to the country. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it is based on the false disciplinary cause.

Attached Form

Of the facts subject to disciplinary action, the insulting part of the victim education officer F with the statement to the effect that the F will improve the work of the F does not constitute “defluence.”