1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. A criminal judgment rendered on November 7, 2012 by the Plaintiff (1) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and four years of suspended execution, with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 24, 2013.

(2) On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape) at the Seoul Southern District Court, and appealed on May 1, 2014, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a part of the appeal filed by the Seoul High Court, and on July 10, 2014, the said appellate judgment became final and conclusive.

(3) On December 19, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Defendant to four years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), which became final and conclusive on September 15, 2015.

(hereinafter “Fraud Defendant case”). (b)

In accordance with Article 104 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “the Administration Act”) and Article 198 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates”) on May 1, 2013, the head of the Seoul Southern Southern Detention Center designated the Plaintiff as an organized violent inmate on May 1, 2013.

(2) On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff, who was transferred to an official prison, filed an application with the Defendant for the revocation of the designation as an inmate of organized violence, but the Defendant rejected the application on January 31, 2018.

(hereinafter "the rejection disposition of this case"). [The grounds for recognition: Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not participate in the organization of violence once, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff was punished for this reason, and the Plaintiff did not specify where the final and conclusive judgment against the Plaintiff was given.

Therefore, organized violent inmates against the plaintiff.