1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff graduated from the Korea Army Academy at Army on March 1, 2012, and was appointed as Second Lieutenant on March 1, 2012, and served as the head of B division at the Department of the Water Defense Headquarters affiliated with the Military Police Group during the period from May 4, 2017 to February 10, 2019 after promoting the military as Captain on December 1, 2015.

B. On November 22, 2018, at around 17:42, the Plaintiff sent the documents (total of 10 pages) in the title “E” from D, which were “E” from the operations of the military police team affiliated with C, via the Kakakao Stockholm. On the same day, around 17:43, the Plaintiff sent the entire summary of the documents and the part related to the personnel affairs of the Army captain-grade officers (total of 5 pages) to the Kakao Kakao Group’s rooms room in which approximately 40 the Plaintiff graduated from the Korea Army Academy at Army, along with the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant document” and the Plaintiff’s act of transmitting the instant document is “the instant misconduct” (hereinafter referred to as “instant misconduct”).

On December 31, 2018, the Defendant rendered a reprimand (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant misconduct constituted a violation of the duty to maintain confidentiality (it does not constitute a type of confidential information, but is worth protecting substantial secrecy) against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, but the Appeal Review Committee of the Water Defense Headquarters dismissed the appeal on January 18, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 14, Eul evidence 2 through 4 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was, before the Plaintiff committed the instant misconduct, disclosed major contents of the instant document by the news materials and press news of the Ministry of National Defense, and the personnel information of the Armed Forces-grade officers is information that can be inquired of on the ordinary Internet, and thus, the instant document cannot be deemed as “non-public nature.”

The Ministry of National Defense shall issue personnel statements to general-grade officers.