1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on May 13, 2016 is three months.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter referred to as "the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in the court below is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. 2. The second part of the second part "the result of this court's order to submit documents to the defendant of this court" shall be "each description of No. 5-3, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 6-15 of the evidence No. 6."

No. 317-18 of the first 3rd 17-18 "the result of the order to submit a document" shall be written "Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 9-2, Evidence No. 1, No. 2, and Evidence No. 6-9, 10, 13, and 15."

Part 4 of the 13th page "the result of the order to submit documents of Eul shall be written with "No. 9-4, Eul No. 2-4, Eul No. 5-8, Eul No. 6-10, 14, 15, and 19".

The 5th parallels 5 to 6th parallels 10 shall be written by the following parts:

“3) Whether a disciplinary action is appropriate) when a disciplinary action is taken against a person who is a soldier due to an act falling under the grounds for disciplinary action, the disciplinary action shall be placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, in a case where the person having authority to take the disciplinary action is contrary to the purpose of granting the authority to take the disciplinary action, or where the person having authority to take the disciplinary action is in violation of the principle of proportionality by choosing an excessive disciplinary action which is contrary to the purpose of granting the authority to take the disciplinary action, or by choosing an excessive disciplinary action which is contrary to the standards that are generally applied to the same degree of flight without a justifiable reason, and thereby violates the principle of equality, the disciplinary action is unlawful as it goes beyond the limit of the discretionary authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du6951, Nov. 26, 199; 2014Du45734, Oct. 31, 2017).