1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a soldier serving as an administrative officer in the 39th Military Service Corps at the 39th Military Service Corps at the Army.

B. On October 22, 2004, the Changwon District Court received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Changwon District Court on October 22, 2004 without disclosing the status of a soldier while driving under the influence of alcohol content 0.198%. The above summary order was finalized on December 8, 2004.

The name of disciplinary action: The fact of violation of duty of good faith (violation of duty to report): The plaintiff shall be a person who serves as an administrative distribution officer at the military service unit, a soldier shall be suspended from office pursuant to Article 8 of the Military Service Rule, and a person shall not be subject to false why he/she issues, delivers, reports, or conceals an order, and where a private prosecutor's office or court has been subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 227 (1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Noncommissioned Officers 112 Regulations, he/she shall immediately report to the direct command officer with the right to disciplinary punishment, and where a military personnel or a civilian military employee has been subject to criminal punishment in a private prosecutor's office or court, he/she shall immediately report to the direct commander with the right to disciplinary punishment, and the noncommissioned officer shall report to the commander with the right to disciplinary punishment immediately, if a civilian prosecutor's office or court is subject to criminal punishment.

Nevertheless, on October 22, 2004, the Plaintiff driven a blood alcohol concentration of 0.198 percent at the Changwon District Court, which was not the military court, but the Plaintiff failed to report it to the commander, and thus, violated good faith obligation. The reason for disposition is that the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized in accordance with Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act.

C. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant issued a reprimand against the Plaintiff on the following grounds.