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 April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Army Staff, and thereafter, from December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff served as a mid-term staff member of the 2 information and communications support unit No. 56 information and communications headquarters No. 56 information and communications support unit B.

B. On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million for the obstruction of performance of official duties, on the ground of the following: “The Plaintiff, upon receiving a report from the Plaintiff around 00:35, on Jan. 18, 2015, sent to the Ganju Police Station C District Unit of Gwangju Police Station, Doing the Plaintiff, and assaulting the breath by drinking,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 1, 2015.

C. On October 15, 2015, the Military Personnel Management Act passed a resolution to discharge the Plaintiff from active service on the grounds that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who lacks judgment capacity” under Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act, Article 56(1)2, (2)1, and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, “a person who interferes with or damages military dignity due to his or her personal life,” and “a person who destroys military unity without exclusiveization,” and “a person who destroys military unity.”

Accordingly, on October 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on October 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition review with the Military Personnel History Review Committee, but the said request was dismissed on February 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was led to the Defendant’s confession during the investigation process, and there was no previous error, and the Plaintiff is in profoundly against D, and the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action since April 1, 2010, and the Plaintiff was given the 11-time reward, including the official commendation on the mid-term ledger from December 29, 2010 to January 17, 2015. The Plaintiff’s assertion is more infringed than the public interest due to the instant disposition.