beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to seven years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (homicide of an organization, etc.), and three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “instant prison”). The sentence becomes final and conclusive, and was transferred from July 8, 2016 to the North Korean Prison 1 (hereinafter “instant prison”) and is under confinement.
B. On August 25, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s following acts constituted Article 214 subparag. 6 and subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”), Article 107 subparag. 6 and Article 109(2) subparag. 1 of the Execution Rule of the Punishment Act, and Article 215 subparag. 2(a) and subparag. 3(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the written resolution of disciplinary action by the Committee on Disciplinary Measures against the Plaintiff at the 1st Prison North Korean Prison North Korea (No. 5-1) on the ground that “Article 109(2) subparag. 2 of the Execution Rule of the Punishment Act, Article 215 subparag. 3(a) and subparag. 4(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment and Execution Act, the Defendant appears to have imposed the standards for disciplinary action under Article 109(2) subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act, and Article 214 subparag. 3(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act.
Pursuant to A, the Plaintiff was subject to the disciplinary measure of 30 days of forfeiture (hereinafter “instant measure”).
1. It shall be referred to as a "reason for Disposition 1" that obstructs a peaceful living under confinement;
On August 10, 2016, at around 11:30 on August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff replaced TV broken down in the Plaintiff’s room located under B confinementdong, and then the Plaintiff, who was going out of the room, concluded that the Plaintiff “Isday to be able to leave the room for the inspection of the ward,” and concluded that “Isday to be able to leave the room for the inspection of the ward,” and that “Isday to be able to listen to what part of the room, Isday to see? Isday, Isday to see.”