(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.10.13. 선고 2020구합50148 판결

B. On October 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure for dismissal pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act to the Plaintiff on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant measure”).

징계처분대상자는,가. 1) 2016년 10월 말경 대위(진) B에게 빨리 00보병사단 ○○○○ 대대에 와서 인수인계를 받으라고 요구하였는데 대위(진) B이 인사상 제한사항으로 조기 전입이 불가능하다고 답변하자 대위(진) B에게 전화하여 “너 공부 열심히 안하면 나한테 겁내 깨질 것 같다.”, “너 군 생활 그 따위로 배웠나?”, “이놈의 새끼, 내가 웬만하면 욕 안하려고 했는데 이 새끼 진짜 이씨”, “내 개인적인 생각으로는 니가 내 수준 만족 못 시킬 것 같아. 이것들이 장난하는 것도 아니고 이씨, 말 같지도 않은 사유대면서 새끼들 이씨, 니가 언제오든 상관 없고 안와도 되는데 그 따위로 하면 진짜 열받는다.” “뭐이런, 뭐 이런 아이씨! 가뜩이나 열받게끔 씨, 너 나 만족시킬 자신이 있나보지? 그 따위로 하는 거보니까”, “야! 너 빨리오는 거 별 관심 없어! 뭐 이따위 새끼가 있나 이씨, 공부나 똑바로 해서 와"라고 말하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.2) 2017. 1. 16. - 2017. 1. 20. 주둔지 훈련장소로 사용하던 00보병사단 건물에서 00보병사단 혹한기 훈련 간 보급중대 용사의 실수로 상급부대에서 훈련 상황을 부여하자 간부 및 용사들이 있는가운데 대위(진) B에게 “중대장이라는 새끼가 뭐하는지 모르겠다. 중대장이 교육도 안하냐"라고 소리를 질러 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.3) 2017. 16. - 2017. 1. 20. 혹한기 훈련 복귀 행군 중 에 있는 섬 주차장에서 병장 C가 복통을 호소하여 대위(진) B이 징계처분대상자에게 해당 인원을 의무대 앰뷸런스에 태워서 복귀시켜야한다고 건의하자 방탄 헬멧을 벗어 바닥에 던지면서 “중대장 새끼가 나약하니까 중대원도 그 모양이다.”라고 소리를 질러 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.4) 징계처분대상자는 2017년 3월 - 5월 경 보금중대 앞에 설치되어 있는 농구대의 망이 찢어졌다는 이유로 대위(진) B에게 “야! 이 새끼 너 부대관리에 관심이 있는 새끼야."라고 소리를 질러 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.5) 2017. 4. 13. 대위(진) B의 핸드폰으로 전화를 하여 시설창고에 있는 소화기 개수에 대하여 물어본 후 대답을 제대로 하지 못했다는 이유로 "너 지금 장난하냐 지금? 야 임마 내가 물어본게 임마거 씨 니가 씨”, “그럼 마 내가 군수담당관에게 물어보지, 너 지금 장난하냐 지금! 그거 몇 개냐고 확인하라고 임마! 아이씨”라고 말하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.

6) 2017. 4. 25. 00보병사단 ○○○○대대 운영과 행정실에서 용사의 포상휴가일수 파악이 제대로안됐다는 이유로 대위(진) B에게 "쌍놈"이라고 욕설을 하고 크게 소리를 지르는 등 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.7) 2017. 6. 1. 00보병사단 ○○○○대대 지휘통제실에서 아침 간부회를 하고 있던 중 중위 B의 보급중대 관련 보고가 마음에 안든다는 이유로 ○○○○대대 간부들이 있는 가운데 대위(진) B에게 “지랄하네”라고 말하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.8) 2017. 8. 20. 대위(진) B의 핸드폰으로 전화를 하여 병력들의 철수가 더디다는 이유로 “씨발 믿음이 안가니 이거 씨발”이라고 말하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.9) 2017. 10. 6. 00보병사단 ○○○○대대 당직실에서 오후 우천으로 서바이벌 게임 일정이 취소되었다는 이유로 대위(진) B에게 “당장 내 눈 앞에서 꺼져"라고 소리를 질러 품위유지의무(언엉폭력)를위반하였다.10) 2017년 5월 - 6월경 00보병사단 ○○○○대대 지휘통제실에서 지휘실습을 받으러 온 소위 D에게 질문에 대한 대답이 마음에 안 든다는 이유로 정작계원으로 근무하던 용사들이 있는 가운데"너 좌파냐”, “무식하다, 아는게 뭐냐”라고 말하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.11) 2017년 7월 – 8월 00보병사단 ○○○○대대 지휘통제실에서 아침 회의 중에 소위 D에게 “믿음이 안 간다. 신뢰할 수 없다. 쓸모 없는 놈”이라고 말하고 아침 회의에 들어오지 말라고 하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.12) 2017년 9월경 00보병사단 운영과 사무실에서 원래 대대장실에 있어야 할 쓰레기통이 운영과사무실에 있다는 이유로 소위 D에게 “쓰레기통 왜 여기 있냐?, 쓰레기 새끼, 쓸모없는 놈”이라고 소리를 질러 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.13) 2017년 9월경 00보병사단 동원훈련 중 소위 D가 핸드폰을 불출하는 과정에서 핸드폰을 잃어버리는 사고가 발생하자 소위 D에게 “그런거 하나 관리 못하냐”, “병신같은 새끼", "머저리같은 새끼”라고 말하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.14) 2017년 10월경 00보병사단 ○○○○대대 대대장실에서 소위 D에게 “너 내 눈에 띄면 죽여버린다.”라고 말하고 운영과 사무실에서 소위 D에게 주먹을 쥐고 손을 들어 올리며 “이걸 때릴 수도없고”라고 말하여 품위유지의무(언어폭력)를 위반하였다.나. 2017. 9. 14. 21:00 - 22:00경 소위 D가 정신전력 평가 대상자 선별을 징계처분대상자에게 보고하지 않고 임의로 했다는 이유로 소위 D에게 “병신새끼”, “쓸모 없는 놈"이라고 소리를 지르면서 소위 D를 향해 리모컨을 던져 품위유지의무(영내폭행)를 위반하였다.다. 2017년 9월 – 10월경 당직사관으로 근무하던 소위 D가 통제성 열쇠함 상키, 하키 중 상키를 몸

At 1st of the new wall, so-called D, on the ground that he did not have to do so, he violated his duty to maintain dignity by allowing so-called D to be so-called "I am unable to keep the key water properly, I am to be responsible," and "I am to be responsible," so-called D to have so-called so-called "I am to keep his own water clearly for 1-2 hours." (d) around March 2016, the Captain reported the result of the settlement of oil accounts at the ○○○ large-scale ledger of ○○○○○○○○, and repeatedly followed the bill "I am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to am to e again, and again put the bill "I am to am to am to am to am to am to am to 15 p am to am to am to am to am to am to be again..".

C. On October 30, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition. Disciplinary action against △△ Headquarters was taken.

On August 11, 2020, the appeal review committee dismissed the appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Indication of the relevant regulations;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The non-existence of disciplinary reasons

There is no specific memory as to whether the statements or actions specified in the grounds for disciplinary action have been made or acted.

In the case of disciplinary reasons related to the breach of the duty to maintain dignity, the remarks such as the “scam”, “scams”, and “scams”, etc. are the mixed standards to express the Plaintiff’s complaint, and the remarks such as the “scam”, “scams”, and “scams”, etc. cannot be seen as the hump in terms

In the case of grounds for disciplinary action related to the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, it shall not be evaluated as assaulting that he/she has lick containers and private fences.

In the case of grounds for disciplinary action related to the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, the act of clearly maintaining the attitude shall not be deemed a harsh act.

2) The assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

In full view of the factors taking into account the criteria for processing the Army Regulations 180 [Attachment 8], it is not reasonable to apply the criteria for disciplinary action of assault in the military in this case, which is not related to the military base, as it is, and comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the illegality of each of the dispositions of this case is removed - the dismissal of the illegality of each of the dispositions of this case - even though it is difficult to regard the degree of demotion as the defendant applied only a disciplinary

B. Judgment on the non-existence of disciplinary reasons

1) Whether the Plaintiff made a statement on the facts of disciplinary action

A) Relevant legal principles

Unless there are special circumstances, it is sufficient to prove a high probability that the facts should not be proven in civil or administrative litigation, and it is sufficient to prove a high level of probability that there was a fact based on the overall review of all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du74702, Apr. 12, 2018).

B) Determination

the purpose of the whole of each entry and pleading as set forth in sub-paragraphs 4 to 24 of this title.

In the case of the plaintiff's remarks in paragraphs (a) through (9) of the same circumstances, i.e., ① the time and situation of the plaintiff's remarks in the case of the plaintiff's remarks in paragraphs (a) through (i) of the same Article, (b) the statement in the currency record of the plaintiff submitted by B is confirmed as identical to the facts of disciplinary action, ② the acts in the case of the plaintiff's remarks in paragraphs (a) through (c) are specific and consistent and reliable; ③ the time and situation of the actions in the case of the acts in paragraphs (a) through (i) of the same Article, (b) the statement in the case of the plaintiff's remarks in paragraphs (a) through (ix) are specific and consistent; (c) the acts in the case of the plaintiff's remarks in the above paragraphs (d) the time and situation of the actions in question, (i) the E's statement in the case of the actions in question, (ii) the facts of disciplinary action, (iii) the victims' statements in question and the facts of disciplinary action are not accepted.

2) Whether each statement in the facts of disciplinary action constitutes verbal violence

A) Article 56 subparag. 2 of the Military Personnel Management Act provides that "where a soldier commits an act detrimental to his/her dignity," the disciplinary provisions of the Army Regulations enacted with delegation of the Military Personnel Management Act, the Military Personnel Disciplinary Decree, and the Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree of the Military Personnel Decree provide that "any act detrimental to his/her normal military life by destroying the other party's dignity by clibing the other party's self-esteem and causing emotional distress and mental shock, etc." The term "an act detrimental to his/her normal military life" is defined as "an act detrimental to the other party's dignity by clibing the other party's personality, taking into account his/her language itself, the relationship with the victim and the perpetrator, the situation at which the victim and the perpetrator were committed, the time and circumstances leading up to such remarks, the result of such acts, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

B) The following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s speech or verbal abuse, i.e., the Plaintiff’s speech or verbal abuse, i.e., the Plaintiff’s speech or behavior pointing out its subordinate working ability or attitude. Considering such a dialogue situation, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the other party, it is reasonable to deem that the above abusive speech included the intent of notifying the other party of his dissatising his dissatising the other party. ② The language or verbal abuse, etc. can be used for the purpose of expressing a fluence to the other party, etc., depending on the context used in the following cases: (i) the Plaintiff’s speech or verbal abuse, i.e., the Plaintiff’s speech or verbal abuse pointing out the other party’s business ability and attitude; (iii) the Plaintiff’s speech or verbal abuse should be determined through the entire contents and context of the conversation; and (ii) each of the Plaintiff’s speech or verbal abuse, etc.’s remarks appears to have been committed as a disciplinary action against the other party.

3) Whether the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action B.D.’s act constitutes an assault

A) Relevant legal principles

Assault in the crime of assault refers to the exercise of physical force against a person's body, and it does not necessarily require any contact with the person of the victim, and thus, in cases where the person was displayed or committed an act to display a hand or an object, as the victim may take a bath near the victim, even if the person was not directly contacted with the victim, it constitutes an assault as an exercise of unlawful force against the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990; 200Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003). Such legal principle applies likewise to determining whether a soldier's ground for disciplinary action is a cause for disciplinary action.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the aforementioned evidence and the entire arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s verbal abuse with D as stated in the facts of disciplinary action (b) and the fact that the Plaintiff had a argumentous agreement, ② comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s statement and the witness’s statement, the Plaintiff’s disciplinary facts are as follows: (a) verbal abuse with E; (b) verbal abuse with E; and (c) the fact that the Plaintiff had a private pension is acknowledged; and (c) both acts are deemed to have exercised physical tangible power against D and E, the victim, and the body of the victim. The Plaintiff’s act described in paragraph (d) constitutes assault. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion also does not accept.

4) Whether the Plaintiff’s act of disciplinary action C. Whether the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a harsh act

앞에서 든 증거 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 위 징계사실 다.항 기재 행위가 있었던 날 D와 함께 근무하였던 병사의 진술 및 D의 진술에 의하면 원고가 새벽에 D를 따로 불러 1시간 내지 2시간 동안 차렷 자세로서 있게 하였던 사실이 인정되는 점, ② 육군규정 180 별표 2에서는 가혹행위에 대하여 폭행이나 협박 외의 비정상적 방법(법규 또는 사회상규 위반)으로 타인에게 육체적·정신적 고통과 인격적 모멸감을 주는 일체의 행위라고 규정하고 있는바, 이는 대법원이 군형법 제62조의 가혹행위에 대하여 판시한 것보다 다소 넓은 범위의 행위를 포함하는 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 육군 얼차려 규정에서는 부동자세인 '차렷'을 얼차려의 종류로 규정하고 있지 아니한 것으로 보이는 점, ④ D는 몸을 꼿꼿이 세우고 긴장시킨 상태로 한 시간에서 두 시간 동안 움직이지 못한 채 원고의 질책을 들었던 것으로 보이는바 상당한 육체적·정신적 고통을 겪었을 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면 징계사실 다.항 기재 행위는 육군규정 180 징계규정의 가혹행위에 해당한다고 할 것이다. 이 부분 원고의 주장 역시 받아들이지 아니한다.

C. Determination on the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is taken at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, and the disciplinary measure is deemed unlawful only when the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure significantly lacks validity under the social norms. In order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be taken in consideration of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, etc., and it should be deemed that the disciplinary measure is objectively unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du10895, Oct. 11, 2012; 2013Du1982, Jan. 29, 2014). Moreover, the court has determined the criteria for the internal disciplinary measure and determined the criteria for the disciplinary measure accordingly, barring special circumstances, 207Du17417.

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view the instant disposition as considerably unreasonable under the social norms, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A) As seen earlier, there are grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, which constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain the dignity of the Plaintiff and two times, a violation of the duty to maintain the dignity of the Plaintiff and a violation of the duty to maintain the dignity of the Plaintiff once.

B) According to Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Disciplinary Decree (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Defense No. 986, Jun. 25, 2019) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Defense, Jun. 25, 2019), it is possible to impose disciplinary action from removal to reprimand depending on the degree of misconduct, intentional act, or negligence as it constitutes 10.C. Article 2 subparag. 1 (a) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Disciplinary Decree (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Defense No. 986) provides that disciplinary action shall be taken on the basis of the following grounds: (i) the degree of misconduct, intentional act, or breach of duty to maintain dignity; and (ii) the disciplinary action shall be taken on the basis of the following grounds: (i) the violation of duty to maintain dignity of the Army Regulations and the violation of duty to maintain dignity; and (ii) the disciplinary action shall be imposed upon one of the most severe disciplinary actions during the period of disciplinary action.

C) According to the above provision, in the instant case where disciplinary action is concurrently taken against the Plaintiff on several non-related facts, the term “spawn-in, etc.” aggravated at one-stage level in the basic stage of the breach of dignity maintenance (in the territorial violence) that may be deemed most liable shall be deemed as the kind of disciplinary action.

The disposition of this case is determined as a type of disciplinary action, and the above criteria for disciplinary action are consistent with the criteria for disciplinary action, and it is difficult to view that the above criteria for disciplinary action lacks rationality.

D) The Plaintiff asserts that the disciplinary action in barracks prescribed in the above Army Regulation 180 [Attachment 8] refers to a case of a fluence against a discharged soldier, such as a violence against a discharged soldier, and thus, it shall not be applied to the facts of the disciplinary action in this case. However, in interpreting the language and text of the violence in barracks, it is reasonable to regard the above [Attachment 8] as the overall application of the violence committed in barracks, and the factors to increase and reduce the criteria for disciplinary action are listed in the various factors of the violence committed in barracks, and thus, the scope of application of the criteria for disciplinary action cannot be derived, considering the fact that the criteria for disciplinary action cannot be derived, as alleged by the Defendant, since the various factors of the criteria for disciplinary action are listed in the form of the action, and the above criteria for disciplinary action are divided into a case of a senior officer and a soldier, the scope of

E) The Plaintiff, as a superior of the victims, was in the position to direct and supervise the victims. The Plaintiff continued and habitually committed language violence and cruel acts against only a specific victim for a long time, and it appears that the act was committed by other people in the open place. The victims stated that the victims suffered serious mental pain due to such continuous verbal abuse, etc., and the Plaintiff’s speech and behavior was also stated to the effect that the Plaintiff’s speech and behavior also came to reach the level of rashing the victims beyond social reasonableness. The Plaintiff and the victims were all the executives of the victims, who were the senior executives of the victims, and that the acts of bullyinging the lower-ranking executives due to insulting speech and behavior would adversely affect the military fraud, discipline, and communication system, and that such acts were conducted in a situation where the death was reported.

F) Ultimately, the public interest, such as the protection of human rights in the military forces, the establishment of military discipline, and the guarantee of public confidence in the entire military, seeking to achieve through the instant disposition, cannot be said to be less than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would suffer due to the instant disposition.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.