1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a Army Master, served as an officer in charge of collecting intelligence from around December 2013 to the Armed Forces Security Command B.

B. On July 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension from office for three months to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity by committing the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Around April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol on April 10, 2015 (gold 20:10), with respect to the calculation of the drinking value before the main point of “D” managed by the victim C (Nam and age 35).

A defect in the statement that the above victim “shall calculate the drinking value and attach it to the plaintiff two times,” the plaintiff made an inappropriate expression that “I wish to make the above victim’s calculation,” “I would like to take why you want to do so,” and “I would like to see why I would like to pay the drinking value.” For the purpose of preventing the above victim, the plaintiff made an inappropriate expression that “I impe, chron,” and “I am obviously,” “I am.”

Since then, the plaintiff left the above main point, the above victim suffered from the plaintiff's arms, and the plaintiff suffered from the above main point of view, and in the process that the plaintiff spreads the above victim, the defendant was faced with the face of the victim.

As a result, a person subject to disciplinary action committed improper speech to the victim while under the influence of alcohol and committed a breach of dignity such as punishing the victim with his body fighting.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Minister of National Defense, but was dismissed on September 25, 2015, and the Plaintiff was currently discharged from active service.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 13, 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that he was subject to a military prosecutor's disposition that he was not authorized to prosecute the misconduct of this case, and in such a case, warning, reprimand, and salary reduction.