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 December 17, 2007, the Plaintiff joined the Air Force Noncommissioned Officers as of December 17, 2007, and served as a training investigator from April 1, 2013 to the 10th Investigation Department B of the Air Force 10 Air Force.

① On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the password C of an investigator who became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties at the office office’s office on May 16, 2013, and connects C’s computer, and combines 18 Korean document files related to female-gun into a one’s tronet book and attempted to peruse them.

There was an attempted attempt.

② On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the investigator’s service numbers and password from his own computer for business in his office, and accessed e-mails sent to C without permission, and deleted them.

③ On May 2014, the Plaintiff’s meeting to report on the weekly situation as instructed by the Chief of Staff;

5.12.12.)" and "the instructions of the Chief of Staff" (Monthly Session of Staff);

5. Two military data, including “27.” were printed out, and the photo is stamped on his/her cell phone, and the same was stored in the cell phone storage medium, and the aforementioned cell phone was removed from the outside without any security review. B. On September 17, 2014, the 1000000 Air Force Disciplinary Committee decided on the disciplinary action of the Plaintiff for the reason that the following acts (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) committed by the Plaintiff constituted the violation of the duty to maintain dignity (the attempted detection of public secrets), and the violation of the duty to comply with the law (the violation of the rules on military police officers of the Air Force, and military security instructions). Accordingly, on October 16, 2014, the Defendant filed a request for a review of the above disciplinary decision with the Committee on the Review of the Air Force Headquarters Resolution, and the Committee on the Resolution of the Air Force Headquarters Resolution passed the disciplinary action of the Plaintiff on March 16, 2014. Accordingly, on October 21, 2014, the Defendant was subject to the disciplinary action of suspension (hereinafter “instant”).

AB made it.

C. On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff’s instant case to the Appeal Committee of the Aviation of the Air Force Headquarters.