1. On December 21, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the disciplinary action in January of salary reduction against the Plaintiff was invalid.

2...

Details of the disposition

From September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff is a soldier who served as a Captain in the Water Group B division from September 29, 2017.

On December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff received a disposition of suspending indictment (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspending indictment”) from the ordinary prosecutor’s office of the waterworks branch on the ground of the fact that “the Plaintiff was stolen by having c, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s daily behaviors”) and the Victim G E E Empt (hereinafter “instant Nompt”) with the instant Nompt North Korea (hereinafter “instant Nompt”),” from the ordinary prosecutor’s office of the waterworks branch.

Accordingly, on December 21, 2017, the defendant took a disciplinary measure for one month of salary reduction based on Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act, based on the following facts of suspicion of disciplinary action against the plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). A disciplinary person is a person who works as a subordinate H officer.

A disciplinary person appears to be a clerical error in J's J', located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu around 23:00 on November 22, 2013.

(A) Within the main point, the victim G, who was in combination with the suspect, left the Samsung Electronic No. 1,300,000,000 won at the market price, was stolen by means of hiding it even though he was found again.

In this respect, the disciplinary person violated the obligation to observe the law.

The plaintiff filed an adjudication on constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court on the disposition of suspending indictment of this case. On February 27, 2020, the Constitutional Court revoked the disposition of suspending indictment of this case on the ground that the disposition of suspending indictment of this case infringed the plaintiff's right to equality and the right to pursue happiness on the ground that there was a grave investigation failure or error in the determination of

On March 18, 2020, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Water Bureau issued a disposition against the plaintiff that he was guilty.

[Grounds for recognition] A.1 through 3 evidence, each entry of Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleading as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case on the following grounds: the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was legitimate is serious and clear.