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 February 13, 1988, the Plaintiff was transferred to Staff Sergeant, and then was promoted to the first sergeant on October 1, 2016.

B. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff received a summary order of a fine of KRW 4.5 million (No. 2016 senior military court at the sixth Military Service Corps) (No. 2016 senior military court at the sixth Military Service Corps). On February 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a demotion (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) upon the resolution of the disciplinary committee.

Specific facts subject to disciplinary action (hereinafter referred to as "the misconduct of this case") are as shown in attached Table 1.

C. On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the Appeal Appeal Review Committee on the instant disposition, but the said Committee dismissed it on April 21, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) Although the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action for ten days of probation due to a violation of the duty to maintain dignity on June 10, 2010, the criteria for the disposal of the disciplinary action against the military personnel and military service officials of the Ministry of National Defense for disciplinary action by increasing the “two-time drinking driving” (hereinafter “instant processing criteria”) under Article 4-4 [Attachment 2] of the Ministry of National Defense’s Disciplinary Guidelines for Drinking Operation (hereinafter “instant processing criteria”).

B) Since the above disciplinary records had already been deleted before the enforcement of this case, the act of misconduct in this case does not constitute a two-time drinking driving. 2) In light of the following: (a) the act of misconduct in this case was inevitably driven in order to care for a hospital with high-speeder care (3 years old at the time) after drinking the alcohol preceding the preceding day; (b) the act of misconduct in this case was inevitably driven in order to care for a hospital with high-speeder care (3 years old at the time); (c) around 30 years of duties entrusted to the military faithfully and received official commendation from the head of the military, etc.; and (d) the act of misconduct in this case supported the mother and the consciousness of the head of the military, etc., the disposition in this case was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing