1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was detained on May 13, 2014, and was admitted to the Incheon Detention Center on May 19, 2014, and transferred to the B prison (hereinafter “B prison”) on February 3, 2017, and later discharged from the prison on September 11, 2017.

B. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared an application for purchase of postage stamps (IMF card) in order to purchase postage stamps; (b) placed in B prisons; and (c) put them into a “general task (goods)”; (d) put them into a “non-public stamp”; and (d) put them into an error that the computer did not recognize as an application for the purchase of postage stamps, resulting in the failure to purchase postage stamps.

C. On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff asked the reasons for the failure to receive postage stamps, and sought an explanation from the admitted employee that the Plaintiff did not purchase postage stamps due to the Plaintiff’s Maalking electronic error caused by the Plaintiff’s Maalking electronic error.

On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a written complaint claiming that it was a breach of duty and obstruction of the exercise of rights to the correctional officer in charge of the purchase of postage stamps in B correctional institutions. On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff rendered a decision of rejection on April 27, 2017 with respect to a breach of duty by a prison officer in charge of the purchase of postage stamps.

E. On March 23, 2017, the Disciplinary Committee of the B Correctional Institutions decided that the Plaintiff’s act falls under subparagraphs 1 and 5 of Article 107 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”), and decided to impose disciplinary measures (including including the period of investigation 8 days, the period of disciplinary measures from March 23, 2017 to April 13, 2017; hereinafter “instant disposition”) for 30 days of forfeiture, and notified the Plaintiff thereof on the same day.

F. On March 24, 2017, the head of the correctional institution was aware of the Plaintiff’s filing of the complaint as a crime of false accusation and sent it to the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office. On March 29, 2017, the head of the correctional institution was issued a non-prosecution disposition by insufficient evidence.

G. The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, and Seoul Regional Correctional Agency.