1. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on June 20, 2014 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a sentence of 20 years of imprisonment for committing murder (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5290 Decided December 27, 2010) and was transferred from the Hong Prison to a private prison on March 8, 2013, and is currently being executed in the official prison.

Article 214 Subparag. 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Execution and Treatment of Prisoners (hereinafter “instant violation”) that the Plaintiff was found to possess one broom without permission around 07:00 on June 13, 2014 and that the Plaintiff violated Article 214 Subparag. 15 of the same Act.

B. On June 20, 2014, pursuant to Article 107 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) and Article 228 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 831, Nov. 17, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act”), the Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the same day following the disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee, which suspending or restricting the treatment under Article 108 subparag. 4 through 13 of the Punishment Execution Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The instant disposition was currently executed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the circumstances, etc. in which the Plaintiff asserted that he had resided in good faith, the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff had “brooms” rather than dangerous and dangerous goods.

B. Attached to the relevant laws and regulations

C. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the public interest purpose and purpose of achieving the act of disposal in question.