1. The part of the instant lawsuit’s claim for revocation of security and treatment as a discharge is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a 13-year imprisonment due to murder, and was transferred to a astronomical open prison from Jeju Correctional Institution on September 3, 2012, and is currently being executed in the Sinpo Correctional Institution.

The violation of subparagraphs 5, 9, 14, and 17 of Article 214 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act is recognized.

It is reasonable to take disciplinary measures because the plaintiff has requested unfair money and other valuables and conducted money transactions with a purchaser, and there is a disturbance during the investigation period and the suspicion of contact with the investigator of the same case without permission of the worker.

On October 18, 2013, pursuant to Article 107 of the former Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (amended by Act No. 12900, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”), and Article 228 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Execution Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 831, Nov. 17, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Execution Act”), the Defendant imposed a fine for 20 days on the Plaintiff following a resolution of the disciplinary committee.

C. On the same day, the Defendant, following a meeting of the Committee for Temporary Treatment pursuant to Article 99 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act, issued a disposition to lower the Plaintiff’s security and treatment pay from open treatment pay to mitigated security and treatment pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

At around 14:45 on the same day, B affiliated with the astronomical Open Correctional Institutions notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition verbally at the Living Room of the astronomical Open Correctional Institutions.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 3, 4, Eul 2, Eul 2's testimony, witness Eul's testimony, the whole purport of pleading

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The lawsuit of this case against the Defendant’s main defense is unlawful, since it was filed with the period of filing the lawsuit stipulated in Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

B. Determination 1-related statutes and legal principles.