1. Of the part against Plaintiff A in the judgment of the first instance, the Minister of National Defense against the said Plaintiff on March 20, 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 15, 2008, the Minister of National Defense (hereinafter “the Minister of National Defense”) reported from the Armed Forces Commander on the information that the Korean Federation of Korean University Students Association (hereinafter “Korean Federation”) promotes a movement to send culture books (23 books) to soldiers on active duty in order to strengthen the anti-government-unclucent project against soldiers, and the Korean Supreme Court decided that the soldier’s transfer of books was likely to undermine the mental power of the national army and prevent it from doing so, the Minister of National Defense (hereinafter “the Minister of National Defense”). On July 22, 2008, on the basis of Article 16-2 of the Military Service Rule, the Minister of National Defense instructed the commander of the Military Forces to take measures to block the entry of books of the said 23 books into the military army (hereinafter “the instant order”), and ordered the commander of the Military Forces to take measures to block the entry of books of the said 23 books into the military army (hereinafter “the head of the Military Defense”). The Minister of National Defense (hereinafter “Defendant 208”).

B. The Plaintiffs passed the judicial examination or the examination for appointment of military advocates and completed the curriculum of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, and were appointed as military judicial officer at the time of the instant order, and were in office as military advocates.

C. On October 22, 2008, Article 47-2 of the Military Personnel Management Act (amended by Act No. 10703, May 24, 2011; hereinafter the same) which is the basis of the instant order, and Article 16-2 of the Military Service Rule violates the principle of prohibition of blanket delegation, the principle of statutory reservation, and the principle of clarity, and the instant order and the said Military Service Rule violate the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights.

On March 18, 2009, the president of the president of the U.S. respectively removed the Plaintiff A from office with the approval of the Minister of Justice by applying the following grounds (i) through (v).