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 non-commissioned officer (rank: Master and Gun: C) who served as a vice commander at the 61st unit of the 20th class of the 21st class of the 61st class of the 20th class of the 20th class of the 20th class of the

After the concentration of the last half of the year (from November 21, 2016 to 25), the Plaintiff: (a) at the middle-class living room of the company (from November 21, 2016 to the left side of the company; (b) at the front side of the company, the Plaintiff used patrols at the front side of the company to operate the 18:0 to 19:000-19:00 for the performance period of the mission of the combat unit on January 16 to 30, 2017; and (c) operated the Handphone at the front line during the performance period of the mission of the combat unit on January 16, 2017; and (d) operated the Handphone at the daily and hourly life room during which the commander of the company took part in the training

On March 23, 2017, the Defendant recognized the disciplinary facts of the following (hereinafter “instant disciplinary facts”) against the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition for three months of reduction of salary (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant disciplinary action constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (Assault) and a violation of the duty to maintain good faith (limited to negligence) stipulated in Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act.

C. On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Appeal Review Committee on the Mechanical Fire Assistants Group on the 20th of March 27, 2017, but the said appeal was dismissed on June 28, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The provision on disciplinary action 180 of the Army Regulation 180 on the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion of procedural defects (hereinafter “instant provision”).

Article 3(1) of the same Act provides that a person having authority over disciplinary action may not be subject to disciplinary action twice against the same fact. The Plaintiff received a warning from the BJ with the same content as the instant disciplinary action prior to the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition constitutes double disciplinary action and is unlawful. (2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no cause for disciplinary action only caused the Plaintiff to see the number of the following parts.