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 March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff served as the Second Lieutenant, and from March 10, 2016 to April 9, 2017, the 7th volunteer group No. 5 B (Subrogation) served as the First volunteer group.

B. On May 31, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of salary reduction for two months to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act on the following grounds:

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") 1. Violation of the duty to maintain dignity (or violation of the duty to commit violence in the territorial sea)

A. On July 20, 2016, at around 15:00 on July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff assaulted the victim’s left part by inserting the victim’s fingers into the victim’s fingers and assaulting the victim’s fingers in both sides, and assaulting the victim’s left part by 2:3 cm with the key, and strongly dividing the part of the victim’s bottom into the pents (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”).

In March 2017, when on duty, the Plaintiff participated in the process where soldiers were on duty while on duty and instructed soldiers to leave 20 to 30 minutes intentionally and promptly to do a non-obligatory act (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) and forced soldiers to do so (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”). 2. Violation of the duty to maintain dignity on March 2, 201

A. The Plaintiff’s verbal abuse around September 2016, 201, which reads “Neina Operations Division,” “Neina”, “Neina”, “ATCS C due to operations because it does not need width,” and “The rating is obtained with the thickness of the chief of the operations division” (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”).

The Plaintiff, among the victims, made a verbal speech to other executives, such as “pulverging to evaluate”, on the ground that the victim’s speech is not heard and only governed by the control of the chief of the operations division (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 4”).

The Plaintiff habitually expresses his name to the first class noncommissioned officer in front of the ordinary soldiers, such as “the first class noncommissioned officer shall use his name,” etc.