1. The Defendant’s discharge from active service on September 8, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

On October 22, 1994, the Plaintiff was appointed as the naval noncommissioned Officer, and was promoted to the Master on September 1, 200. On July 14, 2008, the Plaintiff was exclusively dedicated to the first half on July 14, 2008, and served as the search officer and the search officer in the Tamb Group C.

On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a three-month suspended sentence of imprisonment for committing a crime of violence against superior officers at the general military court of the Navy Operation Headquarters as follows, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On July 4, 2016, around 21:10, the Plaintiff: (a) and five associate officers in front of the E convenience store located in Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province; (b) had discussed about the assessment of the victim’s raw death F (the age of 43) and the subsequent noncommissioned officers; and (c) had brued the beer of the beer G during the beer, and the victim had scrued so that he would not bring about the Plaintiff’s letter; and (d) expressed that the victim “the victim was fluored of scru and scrus; H-in and scrued of scrus; and (e) assaulted the victim, who is a superior, at one time at the left crush of the victim, on the ground that the victim had taken a bath after having taken the bath, and caused the victim to assault him.

On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was dismissed from office as a breach of duty (or assault) against the above misconduct by the Doggman B commander on September 6, 2016, and the appeal against the Maritime Headquarters's Appeal Review Committee was partially accepted, and was mitigated to three months from office on November 21, 2016.

After that, the Plaintiff was referred to the committee for examination on discharge from active service of the Korea Navy. On September 1, 2017, the committee for examination on discharge from active service of the Korea Coast Guard (hereinafter “the committee for examination on discharge from active service”) stated that the Plaintiff’s written resolution by the committee for examination on discharge from active service of the Korea Coast Guard (hereinafter “the committee for examination on discharge from active service”) is different from the above written text and text of the above Enforcement Rule. The committee for examination on discharge from active service of the Korea Coast Guard (hereinafter “the committee for examination on discharge from active service”). The committee

The defendant shall pass a resolution of the committee for examination on discharge.