[1] Measures to be taken in a case where a person subject to disciplinary action, who did not obtain prior permission to write a document under the Criminal Administration Act, refuses to send a written request for administrative appeal by the person subject to disciplinary action

[2] The meaning of "person who has been sentenced to disciplinary action" under Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act

[3] Whether a person subject to disciplinary punishment has a duty to allow meeting with a lawyer for the purpose of dispute over the pertinent disposition of forfeiture (affirmative)

[1] A prison prisoner filed an application for permission for writing simultaneously with a written application for administrative appeal, and the written application for administrative appeal does not constitute grounds for refusal of writing as stipulated in Article 33-3(1) of the Criminal Administration Act, but such circumstance alone requires the "permission for writing" as to the "written document" and if the permission for delivery to the outside is to be granted, it would be unfair because the "pre-written permission system of writing" as stipulated in the Criminal Administration Act itself would go away or cause a death culture. Therefore, the denial of sending is not considered unlawful. However, even in this case, the head of a prison or a prison officer shall notify the prisoner of the grounds for refusal of sending and confirm the result of receipt, and the failure to do so is unlawful.

[2] In the interpretation of Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act which provides the method of sentencing a disciplinary action, the expression "the sentence of a disciplinary action" is used only as "the person who has been sentenced to the disciplinary action", but also as "the sentence of a disciplinary action" rather than "the notice of the disciplinary action", and the decision whether to impose a disciplinary action and the type and details of the disciplinary action are decided as the voting right of the disciplinary committee in accordance with Article 47 of the Criminal Administration Act. Therefore, Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act appears to be an independent provision to determine "the sentence procedure, i.e. the person who shall be sentenced to the disciplinary action," the purpose of the above provision is to limit "the person who has been sentenced to the disciplinary action" to the complaint who is not a general correctional officer or an interim manager, and to promote the appropriateness of the disciplinary procedure and the protection of the human rights of the person subject to the disciplinary action by having the warden explain the disciplinary action directly in the presence of the person subject

[3] Although it belongs to the discretionary action of the warden, if the person subject to punishment wishes to have an interview with an attorney who has the authority to file a lawsuit for the purpose of dispute against the disposition of the order itself, it shall be deemed that it constitutes "where it is deemed particularly necessary for treatment", and in this case, the person subject to punishment shall be deemed to have a status similar to the unconvicted prisoner. Thus, the warden responsible for protecting the fundamental rights and human rights of the prisoner is obliged to allow the interview with the attorney who has the authority to file a lawsuit for the purpose of dispute against the disposition of the order in question within the necessary minimum extent in order to guarantee the right to claim a trial where the relevant prisoner is infringed due to such legislative omission.

[1] Article 33-3 (1) of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act / [2] Articles 46 and 47 of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act / [3] Article 18 of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 145 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han-hee, Attorneys Han-hee et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 2002Gadan41495 delivered on December 5, 2002

July 9, 2003

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2002 to August 20, 2003, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 8/9 out of total litigation costs is borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1. A of the above provision may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2002 to the day on which a copy of the complaint of this case was served, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff: The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff, which ordered payment, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 23,00,000 won with 5% per annum from January 1, 2002 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 17.

A. On October 7, 199, the Plaintiff was sentenced to three years from the Chuncheon District Court to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the Plaintiff was in prison in the Ansan Prison. On March 12, 2001, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure of one month from the head of the Ansan Prison on the ground of verbal abuse to a correctional officer and non-compliance with a correctional officer, etc., and was transferred to the Daegu Prison on April 9, 2001 during the period of forfeiture.

B. On May 30, 2001, the Plaintiff issued a written request for administrative appeal as to the legitimacy of the above measure to the officer of Daegu Correctional Institution and Kim Sung-soo, which requested the Ministry of Justice to send it to the Ministry of Justice. However, the above document was not sent outside.

C. Meanwhile, on September 21, 2001, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure on the grounds of suspension on the grounds of the suspension on the grounds of the suspension on the grounds of the suspension on the grounds of the suspension on September 21, 2001. On October 8, 2009, the Plaintiff visited the Daegu prison to meet the Plaintiff, but the head of the Daegu prison visited the Plaintiff, but the head of the Daegu prison rejected the Plaintiff’s meeting on the grounds that the Plaintiff was in the suspension on the grounds that the Plaintiff was in the suspension on meeting (hereinafter “the instant suspension on meeting”).

D. After that, the Plaintiff was released from office on January 6, 2002.

2. Key issues and the judgment thereof

A. Determination as to whether an infringement on the right to external transmission of a written administrative appeal

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's act of not sending the written administrative appeal of this case to the Ministry of Justice is an unlawful act that infringes on the plaintiff's right to write and to send writing documents guaranteed by the Criminal Administration Act. The defendant asserts that the above written administrative appeal is justified because it is a document that did not obtain prior written permission from the head of Daegu prison, and thus it is not sent externally.

(2) Facts recognized

The following facts are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 11, 15 through 20, 26, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 15-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 17 and 18, and the testimony of Chuncheon witness of the first instance trial. contrary thereto, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul No. 1, 3 through 6, 17 (excluding the statement of laverg), and the testimony of the new witness of the first instance trial is difficult to believe, and there is no other counter-proof.

(A) After being transferred to Daegu prison, the Plaintiff had been able to file an administrative appeal against the disposition of forfeiture on March 12, 2001, and prepared an application for permission for writing for the preparation of an administrative appeal on May 28, 2001, and requested the relevant believers who had been detained together on May 30 of the same year to substitute for the written application.

(B) Accordingly, the new interference received the Plaintiff’s written request for an administrative appeal under the Plaintiff’s name by accepting the contents of the Plaintiff’s refusal, and the Plaintiff prepared it by using two copies of the original food, and delivered two copies of the original as well as the original copy (one copy of the document No. 1) to the Plaintiff.

(C) After that, the Plaintiff, along with an application for permission for writing already prepared as described in the above 1.B., requested the issuance of the original and copy of the above written administrative appeal to the officer in charge of prison Kim Sung-soo. However, the Daegu prison did not send the above written administrative appeal to the Ministry of Justice on the ground that the said written administrative appeal was prepared without permission, and did not return it to the Plaintiff.

(D) Meanwhile, from June 2001, the Plaintiff requested a prison officer, etc. in charge of correctional service to verify whether the above written request for administrative appeal was received by the Ministry of Justice and interview. However, wheneverever, the prison officer, etc. in charge did not explain not only the receipt but also the reason why the dispatch was denied.

(E) On August 28, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Minister of Justice on the ground that the competent prison officer did not confirm the receipt of the above written request for administrative appeal. On the other hand, on September 28, 2001, the Plaintiff received a letter from the Kim Young-young, who was in charge of the Voluntary Justice for the Human Rights Movement, and received a letter from the Minister of Justice that the above written request for administrative appeal had been returned to the Plaintiff without sending it to the Ministry of Justice, and the Plaintiff was subject to the instant monetary disposition by cutting 14 parts from the invasion on September 14, 201 to the first trial of September 18, 2001.

(3) Relevant statutes

【Criminal Administration Act】

Article 33-3 (Writing)

(1) Prisoners may either prepare documents or drawings or write a literature, science and other matters with permission of the warden: Provided, That this shall not apply where the details thereof fall under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where it is likely to undermine the security and order of correctional institutions, etc.;

2. Where it is improper for the edification of prisoners.

[Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration]

Article 67 (Provisional Holding, etc. of Writing Documents, etc.)

(1) Documents, etc. written by prisoners under Article 33-3 of the Act shall be kept in custody in correctional institutions, etc.: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where a prisoner wishes to send them outside after writing or a warden permits a prisoner to possess them for a specified period or quantity.

(2) Where any warden intends to dispatch documents, etc. written by a prisoner to an outside or to possess them at the time of his/her release, he/she shall permit it except where the details thereof fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33-3 (1) of the Act and Article 62 (3) 1 through 3 (1) 2) of this Decree. In such cases, unauthorized documents, etc. shall be discarded after notifying the relevant prisoner of the grounds therefor.

(4) Determination

(A) First of all, if the act of not sending the written administrative appeal to the Ministry of Justice is unlawful, the written administrative appeal of this case constitutes a document which was voluntarily prepared without the written permission of the warden required by Article 33-3(1) of the Criminal Administration Act, and which is contrary to the laws and subordinate statutes under Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act, which provides the reason not to send the written administrative appeal to the Ministry of Justice. Thus, the act of the head of Daegu prison or prison officer not sending the written administrative appeal of this case to the Ministry of Justice is legitimate (the plaintiff submitted the written administrative appeal of this case at the same time with the written application of the above administrative appeal of this case and the written application of the permission of writing of this case does not fall under the reason not for refusal of writing as stipulated by Article 33-3(1) of the Criminal Administration Act, but merely on the ground that it alone, if the head of Daegu prison or prison institution has to issue the written permission of "written permission" and further, it cannot be evaluated as unlawful for the reason that the document itself is unlawful.

(B) On the other hand, in this case, the head of Daegu prison or prison officer did not take any measures in violation of Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act by notifying the plaintiff of the grounds for refusing to dispatch the documents to the plaintiff and allowing the plaintiff to submit an administrative appeal again after going through the prior written permission procedure. Rather, the plaintiff who seeks to confirm whether to send or receive the above documents should be confirmed as a result, thereby allowing the plaintiff to go to the petition or the simple form. The measures that the head of Daegu prison or the prison officer in charge did not notify the plaintiff of the grounds for refusing to dispatch the documents to the plaintiff or confirm the result of the receipt are unlawful.

B. Determination as to whether the right to correspondence has been infringed upon by an abnormal attorney-at-law

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Next, on December 201, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for damages on the ground that an attorney-at-law was infringed upon by a prison officer of Daegu prison as his/her attorney. Around that time, the Plaintiff demanded the said attorney to send documents related to the lawsuit he/she was in his/her custody to the said attorney-at-law. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Daegu prison violated the Plaintiff’s right to correspondence by denying it without any legal basis on the ground that there was no attorney-at-law’s power of attorney.

(2) Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of documents related to the lawsuit to the prison officer in charge, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit without any need to further examine, and there is no other evidence to support the above, since all of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 22, and 23 as shown above are written by the Plaintiff himself.

C. Determination as to whether the disposition of this case was unlawful

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff received a 2-month disciplinary measure, which is the largest disciplinary measure under the Criminal Administration Act on the ground that the plaintiff's total 14 knife was cut, and that the above disposition was an abuse of discretion in light of the fact that the plaintiff's simple circumstance was the last means of objection against the rejection of the request for administrative appeal as seen earlier, and that the short period was not long, and that there was a violation of law that was not directly sentenced by the head of Daegu Prison.

(2) Relevant statutes

【Criminal Administration Act】

Article 46 (Disciplinary Action)

(1) Where a prisoner commits any of the following acts, disciplinary action may be imposed:

1. Violating the penal provisions of the Criminal Act, the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

2. Self-injury.

3. Refusing or neglecting work, education, etc. without justifiable grounds;

4. Manufacturing, possessing, using, giving, taking, or hiding any non-permitted object, such as deadly weapons or alcoholic beverages;

5. Other acts violating the discipline determined by the Minister of Justice.

(2) Types of disciplinary action shall be as follows:

1. Warning;

2. Restriction on the perusal of newspapers and books for not more than one month;

3. Suspension of the work requested for not more than two months;

4. Reduction in whole or in part of the work bonus; and

5. Gold for not more than two months;

(3) No disciplinary action shall be imposed again for the same act, and it shall be limited to the minimum necessary extent for the achievement of confinement purposes, in consideration of the motive and seriousness of the act, the situation after the act and other conditions.

(4) Criteria necessary for imposing disciplinary action shall be prescribed by the Minister of Justice.

Article 47 (Disciplinary Committee)

(1) A disciplinary action shall be determined by resolution of the disciplinary committee.

(2) The disciplinary committee shall be comprised of not less than three but not more than five members, and the chairperson shall serve as the warden, while the members shall be appointed or commissioned by the chairperson from among the deputy head, director (in cases of branches, a correctional officer of Grade VII or higher in rank), and outside persons who have abundant knowledge and experience

[Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration]

Article 144 (Pronouncement of Disciplinary Action) The relevant warden shall pronounce the disciplinary action.

(3) Determination

(A) Whether discretionary power has been abused

먼저, 이 사건 금치 2월의 징벌처분이 재량권을 일탈하여 위법한지에 대하여 살피건대, 위 을 제1, 13, 14, 16, 17호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 1999. 12. 4. 및 2001. 3. 12.에도 안양교도소장으로부터 각 금치 1월의 징벌처분을 받은 전력이 있을 뿐만 아니라, 대구교도소로 이감된 후인 2001. 7. 6.경에는 기초질서위반 3회 누적으로 TV시청제한조치를 받았고 이 사건 금치처분 직전인 같은 해 9. 11.경에도 사행행위인 윷놀이를 하다 적발되어 엄중훈계조치를 받은 사실이 인정되는바, 이러한 원고의 비위전력에다 '단식'이라는 행위 자체가 규율위반행위로서 결코 가볍다고 볼 수 없는 점, 또 그로 인하여 다른 수용자들에게 미칠 영향력이 적지 않다고 보이는 점 등 이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반 사정을 종합해 볼 때 원고에게 내려진 금치 2월의 징벌처분 그 자체가 비례의 원칙에 반하여 재량권의 한계를 벗어나거나 남용되었다고 보기 어렵고, 비록 원고가 행정심판청구서의 발송불허 내지 접수확인거부에 대한 마지막 항의의 표현으로 단식을 선택하였다 할지라도, 그 무렵 원고가 제기한 청원에 의하여 조사가 행하여지고 있었다는 점에 비추어 볼 때 이로써 원고의 단식이 정당화될 수도 없다 할 것이므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(B) Whether procedural illegality is procedural

Next, Article 144 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act provides that the warden shall impose disciplinary action. However, the plaintiff does not directly receive the order of the head of Daegu Prison and received the order of the above warden from the head of the above prison without dispute between the parties. If so, there are many provisions stipulating that the notice by the above assistant principal is illegal in violation of the above Enforcement Decree, and that the current penal law specifies "the head" as the subject of the disposition or act. The purpose of these provisions is not to directly carry out all dispositions, but to require that the above disposition be carried out under the direction and supervision or specific delegation of the warden, but to interpret Article 144 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act which provides the method of imposing disciplinary punishment, and therefore, the plaintiff is not "the person who has imposed disciplinary punishment" and "the person who has been subject to disciplinary punishment," not "the person who has been subject to disciplinary punishment" but "the person who has been subject to disciplinary punishment," not "the person who has been subject to disciplinary punishment," and therefore, the decision of the above Article 47 of the Criminal Administration.

D. Determination as to whether the right to interview with an abnormal attorney has been infringed

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues that the head of Daegu prison is unconstitutional against the principle of prohibition of excessive meeting regardless of the purpose against Article 18 (2) of the Criminal Administration Act, and that the provision of the above Enforcement Decree is unconstitutional against the principle of statutory reservation of restriction on fundamental rights, and that the above provision of the Criminal Administration Act, which provides for prohibition of meeting with an attorney-at-law during the period of prohibition of meeting, cannot be the mother law of Article 145 (2) of the Criminal Administration Act, which delegates the method of meeting to the Presidential Decree. Thus, the above provision of the Criminal Administration Act, which provides for prohibition of meeting with an attorney-at-law on October 8, 2001, is unconstitutional.

(2) Relevant statutes

【Criminal Administration Act】

Article 18 (Meeting)

(1) Prisoners may meet with other persons by obtaining permission of the relevant warden.

(2) The warden shall grant permission referred to in paragraph (1) unless there exist any specially improper reasons for the edification or treatment.

(3) Any warden may have a correctional officer participate in an interview with a prisoner: Provided, That this shall not apply to an interview with a defense counsel as provided in Article 66 (1).

(4) The frequency, time and place of meetings, participation in meetings and other matters necessary for meetings shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

[Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration]

Article 56 (Frequency of Meetings)

(1) The frequency of meetings of convicted prisoners shall be limited to four times every month: Provided, That any warden may increase the frequency of meetings with respect to convicted prisoners under the age of 20 or those who receive treatment equivalent thereto and those who have excellent performance in criminal administration.

Article 145 (Execution of Disciplinary Action)

(1) A disciplinary action shall be executed without delay after the sentence of disciplinary action is pronounced.

(2) A person subject to a disposition of forfeiture shall be confined in a disciplinary room and shall be prohibited from using any goods at his/her own expense for meeting, correspondence, telephone conversations, writing, work, exercise, newspaper and book inspection, radio listening, television viewing and self-responsibility during the period: Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply to the preparation of litigation documents of unconvicted prisoners, interview with his/her defense counsel and correspondence, and the warden may, if deemed especially necessary for edification or treatment, grant permission for meeting, correspondence or book inspection.

(4) Where any prisoner is prohibited from meeting and correspondence under the disposition of confinement, the relevant warden shall notify the family members or relatives of the relevant prisoner of such fact: Provided, That this shall not apply where the prisoner does not wish such notification.

(3) Determination

(A) Whether it violates the principle of statutory reservation

First of all, Article 145(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act which provides that "where it is especially inappropriate for correspondence or treatment" in Article 18-2(6) of the Criminal Administration Act provides that "where it is inappropriate for correspondence or treatment" in Article 62(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act provides that "where it is in violation of the principle of statutory reservation to restrict fundamental rights and is unconstitutional, it shall be determined by Presidential Decree with respect to correspondence, which is one of the rights guaranteed to prisoners." On the other hand, the above provision in Article 18(4) of the Criminal Administration Act concerning correspondence provides that "other necessary matters concerning correspondence shall be determined by Presidential Decree." However, it is difficult to see that the above provision in Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act concerning correspondence is more comprehensive than the above provision concerning correspondence and that it is inappropriate to interpret the above provision in Article 18(2) of the Criminal Administration Act or Article 18(2) of the Criminal Administration Act concerning systematic interpretation and treatment of the above provision."

(B) Whether it violates the principle of excessive prohibition

Next, Article 145(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act which prohibits meetings during the period of prohibition is unconstitutional or unlawful as it violates the above excessive prohibition principle, and the prisoner is guaranteed the right to meetings in principle under Article 18(1) and (2) of the above Criminal Administration Act. However, the degree of restriction is limited to considerable degree of frequency of meetings compared to the unconvicted prisoner in light of the inherent status of the person subject to punishment for imprisonment. The degree of restriction should be limited within the extent that does not infringe on the essential contents of the right to general meeting. According to the above relevant laws and regulations, in the case of a prisoner subject to a disposition of two months in which the largest punishment during the period of punishment is heavy, it is difficult to view that the number of general meetings during the period of prohibition is prohibited in total 8-9 times every month, and it is difficult to see that the restriction on general meetings is violated by Article 145(2) proviso of the above Enforcement Decree or the restriction on excessive meetings is restricted by Article 145(2)2 of the Criminal Administration Act.

(C) Whether the discretionary authority of the instant non-compliance measure is abused

Finally, this case's non-permission of meeting itself is illegal due to abuse of discretionary power, and as seen above, Article 145 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act provides that the right to interview may be deprived of a prisoner who is in the custody period, and exceptionally, the warden may permit the "where it is deemed especially necessary for the purpose of comparison or treatment" to the warden. In this case, the decision of the warden's permission has the character of ‘the deprivation of the right to interview during the custody period' rather than ‘the preventive prohibition of the permitted reservation book', â‘the deprivation of the right to interview' has the nature of ‘the prohibition of the cancelled reservation book' rather than ‘the cancellation of the permitted reservation book', â‘ the request for the maintenance of order and the effectiveness of disciplinary action in the prison, so long as the person subject to punishment is not an unconvicted prisoner, the decision of the warden is a discretionary act delegated to the warden's reasonable decision, so long as the person subject to the

However, according to the relevant provisions as seen earlier, disciplinary action is determined to be executed without delay after the sentence is made, and the person subject to disciplinary action is bound to equal contact with the outside from the sentence to the expiration of the period of disciplinary action due to the relation prohibited from meeting, correspondence, telephone communications, and writing as well as meeting, but the current penal laws and regulations do not have separate procedures for objection to disciplinary action itself, and thus, in order to effectively dispute the validity of disciplinary disposition itself, the method of administrative appeal or administrative litigation can only be applied. In this case, if administrative litigation is filed after the completion of the period of disciplinary action, it is necessary to file a lawsuit during the period of forfeiture, but there is no choice but to reduce contact with the outside during the period of forfeiture period, so it is virtually impossible for the person subject to disciplinary action to dispute the right to request disciplinary action itself (On the other hand, it is not possible for the person subject to disciplinary action to dispute the right to request disciplinary action to his family member or family member, and it is not possible for the person subject to disciplinary action to dispute the right to request disciplinary action to the same.

In light of the above circumstances, although permission for meeting during the period of prohibition belongs to the discretionary act of the warden, if the person subject to punishment wishes to meet with the attorney-at-law who has the authority to file a lawsuit on behalf of him/her for the purpose of contesting the disposition of prohibition itself, it shall be deemed that the ground for permission for meeting falls under "where it is deemed particularly necessary for treatment", and in this case, the person subject to punishment shall have the status similar to the unconvicted prisoner. Thus, in order to guarantee the right to request a trial where the relevant convicted prisoner is infringed by legislative omission as above, the warden who is responsible for protecting fundamental rights or human rights of the relevant convicted prisoner has the duty to allow the meeting within the minimum limit necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing the right to request a trial where the relevant convicted prisoner is infringed by the foregoing legislative omission. In such exceptional cases, even if the scope of discretion to permission of the warden is reduced, it seems that the scope of discretion to the permission of the warden is not to be applied to the effectiveness of disciplinary action or the maintenance of order in the school book (On the other hand, it is difficult to apply to the request for retrial procedure of the defendant's.

In light of the above facts, an abnormal attorney-at-law requested the head of Daegu prison to permit an interview with the plaintiff on the ground that "at least an attorney-at-law was allowed to have an interview with the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was in violation of his/her right to contact with the defendant on the ground that the above attorney-at-law was in violation of his/her right to contact."

E. Scope of damages

On the other hand, the circumstance that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering due to the above unlawful execution of duties by the public officials belonging to the defendant is sufficiently confirmed in light of the empirical rule, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the defendant. Furthermore, the amount should be determined as KRW 3,00,000, considering all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as health room, the reasons why the defendant was not allowed to send the written request for administrative appeal of this case, the details of the subsequent measures, and the details and degree of damage of the plaintiff following the non-

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,00,000 won as consolation money and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 1, 2002 to August 20, 2003, which is the date of this decision that the defendant's claim is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation, as sought by the plaintiff, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is delivered to the day of full payment. However, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be applied to this case after being decided as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on April 10, 2003, which is the basis of the above plaintiff's claim. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it has no reason to accept the remainder of the judgment.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

1) In the event of two external wounds, the period of food, clothing, and life, interval may be during a variety of hours, and there are cases where delayed interval transfusions occur after six hours after the credit.

2) 1. In the event of a conflict with the legislation; 2. In the event that it attempts to escape, destroy evidence, or bring in unauthorized goods; 3. In the event that it includes clear false facts concerning the treatment of prisoners and other operational status of correctional institutions, etc.