(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.5.29.선고 2014구합4939 판결

A. From June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was in office as the head of the Army Association Office at the Army from June 7, 2012, and was in office as a rank master and a position vice-head.

B. On December 2013, the Plaintiff left the funeral chairperson of the deceased C Captain who committed suicide due to a sexual indecent act, cruel act, etc., and conducted a astronomical Domination at the law branch of the Gan Military Association. The Plaintiff thereafter held on February 2, 2014.

25. In explaining the father and the mother of the deceased, who is a surviving family member, to the son of the deceased, that the private house was presumed to have been the deceased's old age at the time of the death of the deceased. According to the private houseicide, the female old age was too poor for the former. This is desired to cease the human house.

The author made a statement to the effect that he/she was "as he/she told his/her father," because he/she has a learning and interest in itself lead to an undecent man, and only one's wound, and thus he/she took the mind of each other."

C. After that, the article stating that "the Gun used the victim's improper statement to the victim's bereaved family members to reach an agreement with the perpetrator, and that the speaker was not aware of the fact itself, and the article stating that " was not the purpose thereof." was reported to each media.

D. As to the Plaintiff’s above remarks and press reports, the Defendant sent to his bereaved family the contents of the speech without credibility of the private body, despite the fact that the deceased’s death case was sensitive to the military inside and outside of the military, and as a result, caused the media to bring a suspicion that the military had been able to reach an agreement with the perpetrator to his bereaved family, thereby violating the duty to maintain the military status (Article 9 of the Military Service Rule). As such, the Defendant violated the duty to maintain the military personnel’s dignity as a soldier (Article 9 of the Military Service Rule). (2) According to the National Defense Relations Directive, the soldier, upon receipt of a request for an interview from the KBS reporters on March 21, 2014, did not guide the public relations department when he received a request for an interview from the KBS reporters, and submitted his position to the Plaintiff’s disciplinary committee under the direction of the Ministry of National Defense (No. 1152) and the Regulation No. 801, Nov. 24, 2014.

E. On May 27, 2014, according to the resolution of the Disciplinary Committee, the Defendant issued a seven-day disciplinary action against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary action”). On June 6, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Review Committee of the Army Headquarters on the said disposition, but received a decision to dismiss the appeal on August 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 5, facts without dispute, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff explained about the deceased's bereaved family members of the deceased's natural disaster to the person who participated in the natural disaster, only delivered the statement to the deceased, and there is no agreement or tolerance with the perpetrator, and there is no violation of the duty to maintain the dignity of the deceased as a soldier.

B. The Plaintiff merely ordered an individual’s statement from his standpoint, but did not comply with it as a soldier upon request from the press, and thus did not violate the National Defense Directives or the Army Regulations (Rules on Merit Official Gazette). Even if the Plaintiff violated his family affairs, the above National Defense Directives or the Army Regulations (Rules on Merit Official Gazette) that restrict an individual’s right to reply, thereby infringing an individual’s right to reply, and thus, is unconstitutional and invalid. Thus, there is no violation of regulations.

3. Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

As shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Determination as to the violation of military personnel's duty to maintain dignity

In light of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff’s statement made to the bereaved family members of the deceased constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain the dignity of the soldier by making a statement to the effect that he/she would end up the agreement with the perpetrator, or by making a statement to the effect that it constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain the dignity of the soldier, it shall not be acknowledged that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain the dignity of the soldier on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the statement made to the bereaved family members of the deceased objectively constitutes an agreement with the perpetrator, or that it cannot be deemed that the statement made by the Plaintiff to the bereaved family members of the deceased would end up the agreement with the perpetrator, or that it cannot

① Article 56 subparag. 2 of the Military Personnel Management Act provides that “an act that damages a person’s dignity” due to a cause for disciplinary action shall be prohibited from doing any act that damages a person’s prestige or dignity as a soldier, and Article 9(1) of the Military Service Rule provides that “a person shall always maintain dignity by concluding his/her appearance and uniform.” According to the above statutes, the act that damages a person’s dignity, which is a cause for disciplinary action under the Military Personnel Management Act, means a case where a person committed an act that damages his/her prestige or dignity as a soldier.”

On the other hand, in order for a soldier’s act to be deemed as a military person’s act of impairing his prestige and reputation as a soldier, it should be objectively inappropriate act as a soldier from the perspective of the average person, and it should be predicted that there is a risk of undermining the military person’s prestige or reputation as a soldier. On the other hand, a certain act may not be held liable for such act on the ground that it harms the military person’s prestige or reputation as a soldier.

② In light of the contents of the Plaintiff’s statements made to the deceased’s bereaved family, “(a) the Plaintiff participated in the Domination held in the Gun as the president of the funeral, and (b) the Domination considered a woman’s old age that is inferred to the deceased. (c) The Domination was a woman’s old age that is too good for the deceased’s entire life. He wanting to straw. He want to see that the Domination was a man who is neither good body nor body, and that his father was sent to his father because the Plaintiff revealed to the bereaved family the source of Domination and delivered it as it was, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Gun could not be objectively agreed upon by the perpetrator and his bereaved family from the perspective of the average social person’s standpoint, and that the Domination was objectively agreed upon.”

② According to the statement submitted by the deceased to this court, as the plaintiff made the above statement and then made the statement, whether or not the plaintiff 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' will ''? The plaintiff's 's 's '' as his her her her her 's 's 's 's '' should be withdrawn? If the 's 's 's '' should be withdrawn? The plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's '' does not make a legal 's 's 's 's '' after the above 's 's 's 's '

③ A press report on the above speech is an explanation from the bereaved family’s standpoint that the deceased’s death during the process of judicial process against the perpetrator of the military, and that the bereaved family, who was dissatisfied with the strong incomprehion and dissatisfaction with the deceased’s speech, was explained from the standpoint of the bereaved family, and then, it is clearly stated that the Gun used the agreement with the perpetrator to the bereaved family members.

On the other hand, after the above press reports, the bereaved family members said that they did not have any negative appraisal of the Plaintiff’s remarks in the telephone conversations with the Plaintiff, and in the instant trial, they changed the attitude of the Plaintiff’s remarks by submitting a written statement to the effect that the Plaintiff’s remarks were contrary to the Plaintiff’s remarks or that the Plaintiff’s remarks were not understood to the

In light of the enhancement of the family members at the time of the above press report, the unrest and anti-defensiveness of the military, and the changes in their attitudes at the time of the press report, etc., it is unclear whether the bereaved family members were misunderstanding the Plaintiff’s speech with the meaning of the terms of agreement. If such misunderstanding was made, it seems difficult to expect that the Plaintiff’s bereaved family members may be misunderstanding the Plaintiff’s statement from the standpoint of the Plaintiff’s standpoint, in light of the contents of the conversation that was divided into the bereaved family and immediately after the aforementioned speech

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above press reports were prepared by the bereaved family members rather than by the objective contents of the Plaintiff’s statement, and as a result, it is reasonable to hold the Plaintiff accountable for the creation of a negative press report in the military due to the above statement.

B. Determination on violation of the regulations due to an interview with the press

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s disposition on the ground of the Plaintiff’s above act is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion, considering the content, intention, circumstance, etc. that recognized the Plaintiff’s statement while making a telephone call from the reporter, taking into account the following circumstances, as to the grounds for disciplinary action that the Plaintiff violated the National Defense Gazette and the Army Regulations No. 801 (Rules on the Military Service Official Gazette).

① According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 7, the plaintiff refused to ask questions from the KS reporter about the contents of the statement in this case that it is inappropriate for the plaintiff to clarify the contents of the statement, and the official position is not appropriate to obtain permission from the superior department. The plaintiff again made a call to the reporter to find out the fact that the plaintiff received a request for coverage from the reporter, to find out the identity of the reporter, and the plaintiff again made a call to the reporter, and the plaintiff again made a reply to the reporter that the plaintiff did not want to hear the response of the bereaved family to the statement in this case from the reporter and that the meaning of the statement was not to end up with the agreement or a letter.

② Article 15(1) of the National Defense Relations Directive provides that the head of each agency shall, in principle, announce and respond to all kinds of incidents and accidents at his/her own responsibility. Article 20 provides that a general-grade officer and a senior public official may explain the relevant field in consideration of national interest, military security, etc., and that other employees and soldiers must inform reporters of the fact that reporters need to pass through their publicity department.

Article 23(1) of the Army Regulations (Rules on the Rules of Meritorious Services) provides that all activities related to the press, such as publicity, news gathering, cooperation, measures to be taken on the status of the official gazette, and large media activities, shall be unified into the official gazette of each military unit. Article 24(4) provides detailed procedures for reporting other cases and accidents. According to such detailed procedures, the official gazettes, such as news gathering, etc., shall be unified through the official gazettes or the official gazettes, which are convened to the relevant military unit in the event of the occurrence of the incident and accident.

According to the above, the plaintiff's act of disclosing his position on the press of this case without the direction of the military unit to which he belongs constitutes an act in violation of the above provision of the National Defense Promotion Directive and the Army Regulation No. 801 (Rules on Military Service Official Gazette) (the plaintiff asserts that each of the above provisions is unconstitutional because it infringes the plaintiff's right to reply and the people's right to know, but considering the special characteristics of the military, it is necessary to grasp and organize facts at the whole level when the incident and accident occurred inside the military unit and to cope with the press. For this purpose, there is a need to restrict the procedures for the press of the whole military personnel, and the violation of the right to reply or the people's right to know by the military organization is not because of the response at the organizational level of the military organization, not because the violation of the right to reply or the right to know of the military personnel is not because of the fact that the military organization conceals, distorted, or falsely announces the facts, but it cannot be viewed as unconstitutional if the individual's act of notifying the military personnel to the press of this case is restricted).

③ However, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff refused a request for coverage that the reporter sent to an interview as a soldier in the position of a soldier; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have never been aware that he/she respondeded to the instant speech to a reporter who has heard the response of the bereaved family to the reporter’s name in the process of sending a new statement to confirm the reporter’s name; (c) the method of responding to coverage was not actively stated a new fact; (d) the content of coverage is not distorted; and (e) the content of coverage is not distorted; and (e) the content of coverage is difficult to be deemed as falling under the category of “Prohibition of Report” under Article 23(1) of the Ministry of National Defense Directive; and (e) the content of coverage by the Plaintiff and the content of countermeasures by the military unit thereafter are not significantly different, making a new 7-day disciplinary procedure on the Plaintiff’s act in response to coverage is an excessive measure compared to the extent of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty.

C. Sub-committee

Among the grounds for the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty to maintain dignity is not recognized, and the disciplinary action is deemed excessive compared to the degree of the Plaintiff’s violation of the provision due to interview. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful as a disposition that deviates from and abused the discretion.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.