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 August 24, 1985, the Plaintiff was transferred to Staff Sergeant, and on May 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was promoted to Staff Sergeant on May 1, 2009, and served as a senior executive officer for the five group B group from July 1, 2014 to the fifth group B group.

B. On May 2, 2016, following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, the Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2016 on the ground that he/she has breached his/her duty to maintain dignity (sexual assault, etc.) pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act, and the facts subject to disciplinary measure are as

C. On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disciplinary action, and appealed to the Disciplinary Appeal Committee on May 23, 2016, and the said Committee recognized the facts subject to disciplinary action as stated in attached Form 1(2) (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on December 13, 2016 and decided to reduce the suspension for three months to one month.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” that was mitigated on May 2, 2016, which was mitigated to one month due to suspension from office. 【Grounds for recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 10, Eul’s written evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) The Plaintiff did not have to go through singing with the Plaintiff, and there is no reason for the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the grounds for the disciplinary action are acknowledged, the degree of flight is relatively minor, there is no criminal punishment or disciplinary action while living in the military for more than 30 years, and the Plaintiff was given official commendation by the Minister of National Defense by faithfully performing the assigned duties. In light of the above, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of the discretionary authority by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. The entry in the relevant statutes is as shown in attached Form 2.

C. In light of the following circumstances, the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the witness C’s testimony, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, and this is without merit.