1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 21, 1987, the Plaintiff was assigned to the Army Staff, and was promoted to his superior on November 1, 2007, and served as a military police investigator of the Army Corps B from April 15, 2008.

On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to three months of suspension from office on the ground that he/she violated his/her duty to maintain dignity due to the following disciplinary actions (hereinafter “instant disciplinary actions”).

1. Title of disciplinary action: Breach of duty to maintain dignity;

2. Facts subject to disciplinary action: The Plaintiff is a person who has served as a military police investigator at a military police unit in the position of B company until now.

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Military Service Rule, the Plaintiff shall not engage in any conduct detrimental to his/her prestige and honor as a military person, and is obliged to maintain his/her dignity at all times by decently maintaining his/her appearance and clothes.

Nevertheless, on July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3,00,000,000 by the Suwon District Court on July 31, 2014 by stating that the Plaintiff is a person in charge of his/her own portion and his/her occupation is a company, even though he/she was discovered while driving a Franchising car at approximately 0.134% of the blood alcohol concentration in the section of approximately 100 meters from the street of the cafeteria to the E located in D.

As a result, the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol so that he was punished by the private court and committed an act detrimental to the honor of military personnel, thereby violating the duty to maintain dignity.

3. Grounds for disposition: A disciplinary ground is recognized pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act (Article 37 of the Act on the Management of Civilian Personnel in the Military Service). On February 25, 2016, the Military Personnel Management Act, Article 37 of the Military Personnel Management Act, Article 49(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 57(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Plaintiff was decided to refer the Plaintiff to the Military Manpower Review Committee

Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act on March 10, 2016.