1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Parts used or added;

A. Each “this Court” shall be deemed to be “the first instance court”, respectively, of five pages 1 and six pages 2.

나. 6면 하2~3행의 “이상과 같은 법령 찾아볼 수 없고,”를 아래 『』내용으로 고쳐 쓴다.

Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act provides for the follow-up treatment of persons expelled from a military academy, the Korea Army Academy at Army, or any other military candidate training institution. Accordingly, it is premised on the possibility of expulsion from the school’s officer training institution. However, the Military Service Act or any other Act does not provide for disciplinary action, such as expulsion from the school.”

(c) 7 pages 4, following the “Act on the Establishment of Military Academy”, add “ and” to “the Higher Education Act.”

7면 하3행부터 8면 1행까지의 “라) 즉, 이와 같이 알 수 있다.”를 아래 『』내용으로 고쳐 쓴다. 『라) 반면에 이 사건 학교는 그 설치에 관한 내용을 법률에서 직접 규정하고 있지 않고, 설치 근거인 육군학생군사학교령에서도 사관후보생의 퇴교나 제적, 그 밖의 징계에 관한 요건이나 절차 등을 정하고 있지 않다. 이 사건 학교의 사관후보생에 대하여는 앞서 본 군인사법상 신분보장 규정의 적용이 배제된다고 해석할만한 법률상 근거를 찾기 어렵다.』

마. 8면 12행의 “넘는 해석에 해당한다.” 다음에 아래 『』내용을 추가한다.

In addition, the defendant asserts that Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act and Article 6 (1) 3 of the Decree on the Implementation of Student Military Training can be the legal basis for the expulsion of officer candidates, but in the case of the former, the dismissal disposition shall be made.