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 January 10, 2003, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years and protective custody for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Robbery) and the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Protection, etc. of Victims (special rape, etc.) by the Incheon District Court No. 2002Da727 and 2002

The plaintiff appealed to this, and the Seoul High Court 2003No255, 2003No7 decided on March 26, 2003, but the above judgment became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive on March 26, 2003.

B. The Plaintiff terminated the term of imprisonment in accordance with the above judgment, and is in the enforcement of protective custody in the three prisons of the North Korean Peninsula from November 9, 2012.

C. Meanwhile, the Social Protection Act, which prescribes protective custody, was repealed by Act No. 7656 on August 4, 2005.

However, pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the above repealed Act (hereinafter “the Addenda provision of this case”), the effect of the judgment on protective custody already finalized has been maintained, and the former Social Protection Act shall apply to the execution of protective custody according to the final judgment.

However, the above supplementary provision requires the defendant to exercise the authority of the Social Protection Committee on the management and enforcement of protective custody.

In accordance with Article 25 of the former Social Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7656, Aug. 4, 2005; hereinafter “former Social Protection Act”), the Defendant examined whether the Plaintiff was provisionally released from the military. However, on April 21, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision refusing to release the Plaintiff from the military service (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the risk of recidivism is recognized in light of the Plaintiff’s previous conviction, the facts of flight, and the custody center, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) since the protective custody under the former Social Protection Act is a substantial punishment, it is unconstitutional system against the principle of prohibition of double punishment under the Constitution.