1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 12, 2017 to July 12, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 8, 2013, the Plaintiff was convicted of seven years of imprisonment for violating the National Security Act (organization, etc. of anti-government organizations), etc. (Seoul High Court 2012No805), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2013 (Supreme Court 201Do2511), and was reinstated in Daegu Prison from September 9, 2013 to July 6, 2018.

B. Pursuant to Article 66(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “The Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act”), the head of Daegu Correctional Institution (hereinafter “the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act”) conducted regular reexamination of the individual treatment plan when the Plaintiff reached two-thirds of the term of punishment, and maintained the same general security treatment plan as that of the previous case (hereinafter “prior decision”).

C. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the preceding ruling with the Daegu District Court (2016Guhap1402). However, on June 9, 2017, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the preceding ruling does not constitute a case of deviation or abuse of discretionary power, and the said ruling became final and conclusive.

After that, on June 12, 2017, when the plaintiff reached 5/6 of the term of punishment, the head of Daegu Prison (hereinafter "the decision of this case") conducted regular reexamination of the individual treatment plan, and as a result, from April 2016 to May 2017, on the ground that the plaintiff's assessed income did not meet at least seven points, the head of Daegu Prison (hereinafter "the decision of this case").

E. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant decision and filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant decision with the Daegu District Court (2017Guhap2205). On May 9, 2018, the said court rendered a judgment that the instant decision constitutes an unlawful case where it deviates from or abused discretion in violation of the principle of equality and proportionality under the Constitution, and thus, revoked the instant decision. The Defendant appealed, but the Plaintiff appealed, and the period of reduction expires.