1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The second 13 to 14 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the second 13 to 14") shall be deleted.

② The 3rd written judgment of the first instance court (amended by Act No. 12747, Jun. 11, 2014) shall be amended as “(amended by Act No. 13505, Sept. 1, 2015)”.

2. Additional determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, it cannot be recognized that there was an error of law in the disciplinary procedure for the disposition of this case, even though additional determination as to the allegation of illegality of the disciplinary procedure Gap, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1. On March 26, 2015, the Central Investigation Team of the Army under the Defendant met F on March 26, 2015, and listened to the statements of the Plaintiff, F, and E on the whole inhuman relationship, and the F did not disclose the purpose of the investigation before maturity, but did not notify that it is related to the settlement of accounts of the military accommodation, and notified the purpose of the investigation falsely.

As such, it is obvious that it is inappropriate for the Army Investigation Group to not give a true notice of the purpose of the investigation in advance when it sets up a schedule of visit to hear statements from F, a witness.

However, the failure of F to inform F of the fact that the purpose of the investigation is not true in the Army Investigation Group, is deemed to have been a studio for gathering the F discharged from active service. ② The F, despite the fact that the investigator of the Army Investigation Group was aware that he was an investigation into an inhumanity relationship with the Plaintiff, etc., he voluntarily stated his opinion without refusing the investigation; ③ In the Army Investigation Team, the F, if he did not respond to the investigation.