1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was detained as a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence), and was detained in the Incheon Detention Center under the Defendant’s jurisdiction on January 16, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a conviction of one year and four months from the Incheon District Court (2015No513) and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 17, 2015, and was transferred to the Gwangju Prison on October 26, 2015.

B. On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure of 30 days of forfeiture due to a violation of subparagraph 1 of Article 107 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) and the enforcement thereof was completed on July 9, 2015.

C. On July 13, 2015, at around 14:00, the Plaintiff had a civil petition in the Incheon Detention House and the meeting of 30th room with the Plaintiff’s 30th room, and the Plaintiff was exposed to the public official in charge of the said detention center, where the Plaintiff and the civil petitioner who visited C and C in the same room as the Plaintiff completed the meeting at the meeting at the meeting of 5 room and entered the 3rd room.

The head of Incheon detention house determined that the Plaintiff’s above act constitutes a violation of Article 214 subparag. 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment and Execution Act (the act of deceiving or communicating with other persons without permission) and imposed disciplinary punishment for 22 days (including 9 days in the investigation period) upon the Plaintiff on July 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and its execution was completed on August 14, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The reasoning of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that a public official in charge of the Incheon Detention Center under the Defendant’s control was neglected to control and supervise visitors, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to restrain the Plaintiff from meeting or immediately demand a leave from the Incheon Detention Center, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable.

Nevertheless, the public officials in charge shall force the Plaintiff to prepare a self-written statement and shall conduct a unilateral investigation.