1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details and details of the disposition

A. On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service while serving as an officer in the military for at least 20 years, and served as a Class-V civilian military employee on November 5, 2013 in the Information Headquarters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the analysis of North Korea Economic and Social Society and B

B. On September 29, 2016, the Plaintiff arbitrarily printed all or part of 16 military secrets (hereinafter “instant military secrets”), including Class II confidentiality /SI (Special Information) 2 cases including “10 North Korean military marks of gambling”, “2 cases of North Korea forecast type/yang,” “related cases of the astronomical fleet,” and Class III confidentiality 4 cases, such as “the prospect of North Korean escape in the future,” and “the prospect of North Korean escape in the future,” by using computers for the purpose of studying in preparation for the course of study.

On October 1, 2016, the Plaintiff kept the instant military secrets as his/her own vehicle without obtaining approval from the head of the department and undergoing the procedures for confidentiality, but entered the Army Information School on October 2, 2016, and transferred them to the boarding house of the said School until November 11, 2016.

On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff discharged the instant military secrets from the said school’s accommodation, and neglected the instant military secrets on the books of the said accommodation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant misconduct”). C.

On March 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension from office for January 2, 201 on the ground that the instant misconduct constitutes a violation of the duty of confidentiality (other violation of other security regulations) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and Eul’s evidence No. 1 to 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff printed out, stored, and removed the instant military secrets without permission for the purpose of reference in the Army Information Strategy Information Process Education, and there was no intention to leak or abuse them.

In addition, the plaintiff knew that the military secret of this case was included in the collection of military data, and neglected it in the lodging, and neglected the military secret of this case.