1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2002, the Plaintiff promoted to the KAF to his superior. From August 16, 2014, the Plaintiff served as the 28th Class B vehicle maintenance officer for the KAF.

B. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a disciplinary action for one month of suspension from office pursuant to Article 56 of the former Military Personnel Management Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff indicated the same method as the grounds for disciplinary action according to the sequences attached thereto and indicated that the total amount of disciplinary action was in violation of good faith and fairness.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disciplinary action, but the Army Chief of Staff decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely heard or play a game for music at the administrative team’s mobile phone during work hours. However, the ground for disciplinary action 1 is premised on the continuous performance of the above act from August 2014 to May 2016. Thus, there was an error of law by misconception of facts in the instant disciplinary action. 2) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not have been subject to disciplinary action for 14 years during which he/she lives in the military; (b) the Plaintiff recognized and requested the Plaintiff’s mistake after the occurrence of the ground for disciplinary action 2; and (c) the Plaintiff requested the revocation of the disciplinary action; and (d) the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would have been subjected to the instant disciplinary action is excessive, the instant disciplinary action is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretionary authority by violating the principle of proportionality.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The grounds of disciplinary action No. 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts are as follows: “The Plaintiff was transferred to B on August 2, 2014, and then from May 2016, the relevant administrative team is located during work hours or during work on duty.”