1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiffs, as soldiers of the second class, worked as radar repair assistant (Plaintiff B), electronic device repair assistant (Plaintiff A), and noncommissioned Officer (Plaintiff A) in the 3 Field Military Support Headquarters E group of the 3 Field Military Support Headquarters of the Army (A).

The Plaintiffs received an order to take a business trip (hereinafter referred to as “instant order to take a business trip”) as of November 13, 2017 and as of November 17, 2017 from November 15, 2017 from the date of November 13, 2017, for the purpose of providing support for shooting training for the six group H group of the six group of the six group of the group of the same unit of the same unit of the same military unit and for the shooting training for the shooting group of the six group of the group of the same group of the same military unit of the same military unit of the same military unit of the same military unit of which the order to take a business trip (hereinafter referred to as “instant order to take a business trip”), and carried out the duties of supporting the maintenance of the above shooting range in the I military shooting range located in the south-west from November 13, 2017 to November 17, 2017.

The defendant (the defendant was subject to the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs, but after the institution of the lawsuit in this case, the D military support headquarters was consolidated into C military support headquarters after the institution of the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant was corrected as the C military support headquarters was corrected as the defendant. Thus, the defendant's disposition authority for convenience is referred to as the defendant) on December 19, 2017 following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, as stated in attached Table 1, as of November 15, 2017, the plaintiffs went away from the I military shooting range around 16:00 on November 16, 2017 and went away from around 30 minutes without permission, and returned to the workplace around 16:30 on November 16, 2017 and went back to the workplace at around 08:30 through 16:30 on November 16, 2017, and violated the duty to refrain from removal without permission, and even during the escape, the defendant did not obey the duty to take disciplinary action against the defendant (the defendant).

The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the above disciplinary action in February of the above reduction, and the 3th Field Commander shall review the appeal review committee, and the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs on June 15, 2018 shall be ten days of probation.