1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a soldier serving as an administrative distribution officer in the 39th Military Service Corps.

B. On October 22, 2004, the Changwon District Court received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Changwon District Court on October 22, 2004 by the Plaintiff under the influence of alcohol content 0.198%, and the said summary order became final and conclusive on December 8, 2004.

C. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant issued a reprimand against the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Pursuant to Article 8 of the Military Service Rule, a soldier shall be suspended from office, and the delivery, reporting, and notification of an order shall not be made with false distortions or concealments, and where a private prosecutor's office or court has received a criminal punishment pursuant to Article 227 (1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Noncommissioned Officers, a public prosecutor's office or court with the right to disciplinary punishment shall immediately report to the direct command officer with the right to disciplinary punishment, and where a military prosecutor or court has received a criminal punishment in accordance with the guidelines for the application of the personnel management of punishment records, a military serviceman or civilian military employee shall report to the direct command officer with the right to disciplinary punishment immediately, and under the direction for promotion of noncommissioned Officers in 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "order of this case"), a noncommissioned officer

Nevertheless, on October 22, 2004, the disciplinary person was driving under the influence of 0.198 percent of blood alcohol in the Changwon District Court which was not the military court on October 2, 2004, but failed to report it to the commander, and the plaintiff violated the duty of good faith.

D. The Plaintiff appealed to the Second Operation Headquarters Discipline Review Committee, but the said appeal was dismissed on September 24, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition]