1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined together with the evidence presented in this court, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim is justified

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition or supplementary decision as set forth in paragraph (2) and the addition or supplementary decision as set forth in paragraph (3). Thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts 3 to 6 of the 7th head shall be written in accordance with the following subparagraphs, and the "F." of the 7th head shall be written in "g.".

On January 12, 2017, the head of “E. B” notified the Plaintiff of the fact that he/she constitutes “a person subject to heavy disciplinary action” under Article 209(1) of the Army Regulation 110(1) and that he/she was submitted to the Investigation Committee on Persons with Active Service. On January 26, 2017, the Investigation Committee held a deliberation committee on the instant disciplinary action, based on the facts of misconduct, the affiliated commander and surrounding volunteer groups’ opinions, and the Plaintiff’s statement made at the Investigation Committee, etc., and decided to refer the Plaintiff’s “request for deliberation on discharge from active service.” The Defendant (the Committee for Deliberation on Discharge from Military Service of the Army Headquarters) (the Plaintiff notified the examination committee on February 10, 2017 that he/she was submitted to the Review Committee on Grounds of Review under Article 56(1)2, (2)2, and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act.

On February 23, 2017, the above review committee held a committee for review of discharge from active service and decided on the "competence of discharge from active service to the plaintiff" on the basis of the facts of misconduct in the instant disciplinary action, the evaluation of the plaintiff, other penalties, the opinions of interim commander, the opinion of the Investigation Committee on Persons with B-S Noncommissioned Officers, the opinion of the commander, the opinion of the commander, and the plaintiff's statement at the review committee.