1. The disposition imposing a pharmacologic treatment order issued by the Defendant on April 21, 2014 by the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 29, 2001, the Plaintiff was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims (Special Rape) in the Daegu District Court’s Support on February 29, 2001, and seven years of imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims, and was in the enforcement of protective custody

B. On April 21, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff is deemed to have a risk of recommitting a sexual crime as a sexually transmitted patient, and thus, the Plaintiff released the Plaintiff from the hospital as of June 26, 2014 pursuant to Article 25(1) of the former Social Protection Act (repealed by Act No. 7656, Aug. 4, 2005; hereinafter “former Social Protection Act”), and that “The Plaintiff orders sexual impulse treatment for three years from April 28, 2014,” pursuant to Article 25(1) of the former Social Protection Act (amended by Act No. 1272, Jun. 26, 2014; hereinafter “former Social Protection Act”).

(2) The grounds for recognition are without dispute, entry of the evidence No. 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the statement of the evidence No. 8

2. Whether the provisional release of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff asserts that the provisional release of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus the revocation should be made.

1) In the course of the instant provisional release, the Defendant violated Articles 21, 22, and 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act by not giving prior notice of the instant provisional release, giving an opportunity to present opinions, and not giving reason for the instant provisional release. The Defendant violated the principle of proportionality and Article 24 of the Administrative Procedures Act by not giving a written measure. (2) The Defendant violated the principle of proportionality, and thus, issued the instant provisional release disposition against the Plaintiff’s will in a situation where the Defendant was placed in front of three months before the maturity of the instant provisional release to impose a pharmacologic order on the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant abused discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality. (2)