1. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on May 29, 2017 is revoked for three months of salary reduction.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff was appointed on March 1, 2009 and served as a serious B major from December 17, 2015 to March 19, 2017.

On May 29, 2017, the Defendant, following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, was subject to disciplinary action for three months of salary reduction in accordance with Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated good faith (the abuse of authority to infringe on rights by others, the failure to direct and supervise), the duty to maintain dignity (language violence and intimidation), and the duty to obey (other orders).

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case", and each of the grounds for disciplinary actions is specified as the item number stated in the facts subject to disciplinary action in attached Table 1). [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 4 and 5, and the purport of the entire argument in this case is legitimate, the plaintiff did not instruct the company members to exercise excessive physical fitness, and there is no fact that the plaintiff raised the target amount gradually according to consultation with the company members and did not achieve the target amount.

In addition, there are only 4-6 cases where the head of a company is less than 4-6, so it was difficult to permit the external stay in consideration of the number of atmospheric power, and the results of physical fitness measurement did not infringe on the right to regular outing and outing, and the regular leave was guaranteed all.

With respect to Paragraph (b) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 1, the Plaintiff did not instruct the head of the headquarters C to manipulate the results of the measurement of physical strength D and E.

With respect to Paragraph 1(c) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 1, the Plaintiff has not prevented the company members from freely making a statement about the misconduct of the military unit.

There is no reason to compel the plaintiff to make a specific statement about paragraph 1-d, E, and paragraph 4 of the Disciplinary Reason.

In addition, the plaintiff made a statement unfavorable to the plaintiff in order to send the plaintiff to another place from F.