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 June 8, 1990, the Plaintiff was assigned to the Army as noncommissioned Officers, and served as a military officer in charge of military discipline from June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2012.

B. On December 17, 2013, the Defendant took a five-day disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff, and the facts subject to the disciplinary measure are as follows.

Facts subject to disciplinary action.

2. Facts subject to disciplinary action: The person subject to disciplinary action is a person who works for B major personnel and military lecture officer, and the person subject to disciplinary action is a person who has served for B major personnel and military lecture officer, and in order to award official commendation for persons of merit in mobilization training before the national flag pattern at around 07:30 on June 3, 13, in order to grant official commendation for persons of merit in mobilization training, the person and the office of the personnel affairs and the office that a middle class C, in advance, walked in the field where a female-military police officer is influoral surgery, without any consideration, refers to the form of walking in the form where he/she is influoral D of a female-gun, and thus, the sexual disturbance (sexual harassment) among the violation of his/her dignity maintenance obligations is recognized

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed against the above disciplinary action, and the chief of the sixth volunteer soldier’s office was mitigated on January 21, 2014 by reprimanding the above disciplinary action.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was mitigated from the original disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), / [Grounds for recognition ] Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s statement to C that “Gu slot laps?” (hereinafter “instant speech”).

(2) The Plaintiff did not know the existence of D at the time of doing so. In addition, the instant speech and behavior was intended to verify the facts to C in the course of performing the official commendation work, and cannot be deemed sexual harassment against D. Therefore, there is no ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. 2) The instant disposition against the Plaintiff who faithfully performed military life exceeding 20 years is deemed to be unlawful.

B. (1) Determination 1) Evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and No. 3.