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 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and a fine of 3 million won for committing a crime, such as robbery, bodily injury, and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) at Seoul High Court (2015No2144), and the said sentence became final and conclusive by dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court on August 27, 2016.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is confined from November 7, 2016 through various correctional facilities, such as the Seoul detention center, to the North Korean defectors' prison.

On February 28, 2018, at around 11:10 on February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff refused to comply with the direction of the employee by making the so-called “person engaged in personnel management on the scale of the vehicle,” in a manner of 90-level daily lodging to C at the automobile maintenance training site.

B. On March 9, 2018, the Defendant imposed a warning on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 214 subparag. 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) as follows:

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Ground of recognition】 Facts having no dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant’s disposition of this case’s main defense does not put specific disadvantages, such as that there is no separate enforcement act due to its nature, and that there is no restriction on prisoners’ rights or burden of any obligation, unlike other disciplinary actions.

In addition, even if the defendant stated the facts of the disciplinary measure against the plaintiff in the disciplinary register, etc. and later considered as a result of criminal administration and attitude of prison life, it is merely a factual, indirect, and abstract disadvantage of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is not a disposition subject to administrative litigation because it is difficult to see that it gives any legal disadvantage to the rights and duties of the plaintiff.

B. The effect of the 1 punitive administrative disposition has ceased to exist after the lapse of the sanction period set in the relevant disposition, but it is a prerequisite for the prior disposition as prescribed by the Enforcement Rule.