(영문) 서울행정법원 2007.12.21.선고 2007구합35326 판결

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive or reject the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 and the part of the Plaintiff’s petition seeking revocation of the disposition refusing to answer in writing against the above civil petition for grievance.

2. The Defendant’s revocation of the rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on August 31, 2007 against the application for the subscription of the law-finding procedure

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 50% is borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim

A disposition rejecting the receipt of a civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 and a disposition rejecting a written reply against the above civil petition for grievance shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가 . 원고는 2007 . 6 . 29 . XXXXXXX위반 혐의로 영등포구치소에 입소하여 현재 서울 서부지방법원에서 항소심 재판을 받고 있다 .

B. On July 10, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for an interview with the director of the educational pedagogy and the director in relation to his personal affairs by making a report, and on July 13, 2007, an interview with the educational pedagogy and the church A had been conducted on July 13, 2007, and the Plaintiff applied for an interview with the legal plagogy. On August 31, 2007, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s application for an interview with the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no relevant provision (hereinafter “the instant rejection disposition”).

C. On July 18, 2007, the Plaintiff submitted a written civil petition for grievance with respect to the edification broadcasting within the Yeongdeungpo-gu Prison, along with the written report. At the time of the submission, the Plaintiff received the said written civil petition for grievance as a civil petition and sought to receive the response in writing.

D. After registering the above civil petition for grievance in the security management and the reception and treatment book of prisoners' report, the Defendant transferred the above civil petition for grievance to the educational edification department, which is the department for the management of security, and the educational edification division B had interview with the Plaintiff on July 20, 2007. After completing the interview with the Plaintiff, the counseling division was prepared and the summary of the counseling division is as follows. On July 18, 2007, the Defendant tried to understand the above civil petition for grievance with respect to the current broadcasting system and program programming, not to want consultation with the person in charge of the civil petition, but to record his/her reply in the civil petition ledger and to provide it in writing, not to consult with the person in charge of the civil petition, and if it cannot be accepted as a civil petition, it cannot be accepted as a civil petition, but it cannot be accepted as a written request for consultation and consultation with the prisoners, but it cannot be accepted as a general civil petition, and it cannot be accepted as a result of consultation and consultation with the prisoners.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Of the instant lawsuit, whether the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive or reject the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 and the part seeking revocation of the disposition refusing to answer in writing against the above civil petition for grievance is legitimate

First, we examine ex officio the Plaintiff’s rejection of the receipt of the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 and the part of seeking revocation of the rejection of the written response against the above civil petition for grievance.

Article 3 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Petitions Treatment Act") provides that the Civil Petitions Act shall not apply to cases where there are special provisions in other Acts with respect to civil petition affairs. The Criminal Administration Act (Article 1) provides that the matters concerning the confinement of unconvicted prisoners may be filed with the Minister of Justice or a net inspection officer when a prisoner objects to the treatment of an unconvicted prisoner. Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act provides that a prisoner may file a petition with the Minister of Justice or a net inspection officer, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act provides that a prisoner may file a request for an interview with the warden with respect to the treatment of an unconvicted prisoner.

As seen above, the Plaintiff’s letter of civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 is related to the edification broadcasting in Yeongdeungpo-gu, which is related to the treatment of prisoners, and the matters related to treatment of prisoners takes precedence over the civil petition law. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s letter of civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 is registered in the book of treatment of written correspondence in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act, rather than the procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act, rather than the procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant registered the plaintiff's civil petition for grievance settlement in the security management department and the reception department of the report on the person who received the plaintiff's civil petition for grievance, transferred it to the educational edification department, which is the education and edification department for the edification and provided consultation related to the civil petition for grievance, and the person in charge of education and edification and broadcasting provided answers to the civil petition for grievance settlement in the course of consultation. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have rejected the plaintiff's receipt of the civil petition for grievance

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the plaintiff's rejection of the civil petition for grievance and the rejection of the response against the plaintiff's civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 is unlawful since there is no rejection disposition seeking revocation.

3. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 33 (1) of the Criminal Administration Act, prisoners may apply for the purchase and inspection of newspapers or books at their own expense. According to paragraph (2) of the same Article, the relevant warden shall permit the purchase and inspection of newspapers or books requested by prisoners pursuant to paragraph (1) unless the contents of the newspapers or books requested by prisoners harm the security and order of correctional institutions, etc. or are deemed inappropriate for edification. Thus, the relevant warden does not recognize that the original high-priced law, newspapers or readings applied for the inspection of newspapers or books harm the security and order of correctional institutions, etc. or are not deemed inappropriate for edification, and thus, the rules on treatment of prisoners, and the guidelines for the inspection of newspapers by prisoners are unlawful since they restrict the types of newspapers beyond the above limits under the

Therefore, despite the fact that the defendant should accept the plaintiff's application for the reading of the law, it is illegal.

B. Determination

(A) Relevant provisions

Article 33 (1) of the Criminal Administration Act provides that "a prisoner may apply for the purchase and inspection of newspapers or books at his own expense." Paragraph (2) provides that "The contents of newspapers or books requested by a prisoner pursuant to paragraph (1) are deemed to impair the security and order of correctional institutions, etc. or to be especially inappropriate for edification."

Article 34 of the same Act provides that the relevant warden shall permit the purchase and inspection of the relevant warden, and Article 60 (3) of the Rules on the Classification and Treatment of Prisoners (Ordinance No. 111 of the Ministry of Justice) provides that the Minister of Justice shall determine matters necessary for the subjects and hours of education and the inspection of newspapers and books.The types and quantities of newspapers that can be perused by prisoners shall be determined by the head of the relevant correctional institution, etc., and Article 3 of the Guidelines for Inspection of Newspapers of Prisoners (Rules No. 740 of the Ministry of Justice) provides that the newspaper to which prisoners intend shall be published shall be a daily newspaper published regularly in Korea.

(B) The instant refusal disposition was based on Articles 33 and 34 of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 60(3) of the Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners, Article 3 of the Guidelines for the Inspection of Prisoners’ Newspapers.

However, according to Article 33 of the Criminal Administration Act, a prisoner’s right to apply for the reading and perusal of the newspaper at his own expense (Paragraph 1), and as long as the contents of the newspaper applied for by a prisoner are not deemed to undermine the safety and order of this school, or to be especially inappropriate for edification, the warden of the prison shall permit it. Thus, the scope to which the Minister of Justice delegates matters necessary for the reading, etc. of the newspaper to be prescribed by Article 34 of the Criminal Administration Act shall not be delegated so that a prisoner may limit the types of newspapers available for perusal, but shall be deemed to have delegated specific matters concerning the detailed procedures and methods necessary for a prisoner to peruse the newspaper, and articles excluded from the perusal.

Therefore, Article 60(3) of the Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners and Article 3 of the Guidelines for Inspection of Newspapers of Prisoners are illegal and invalid in that it limits the types of newspapers that prisoners can read beyond the scope delegated under Article 34 of the Criminal Administration Act (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 98Hun-Ma4 Decided October 29, 1998 en banc Decision 98Hun-Ma4 Decided October 29, 1998). The reason is that the restriction within the reasonable scope, such as the restriction of the types of newspapers to be read, is not necessary. The reason is that “Although it states an explanation, it is based on Articles 33 and 34 of the former Criminal Administration Act (amended by Act No. 6038 of Dec. 28, 199) and thereafter, the relevant provision was amended as seen above, and thus, the issue is different). The instant rejection disposition based on Articles 60(3) and 3 of the Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners, invalid, is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case, which rejected the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's civil petition for grievance on July 18, 2007 and the plaintiff's rejection of the above civil petition for grievance with the above civil petition for grievance, is legitimate and dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.