logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.13 2017구합66986
견책처분취소
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. From November 29, 2011, the Plaintiff served as the Chief of the Main Telecommunication Station at the 61-mechanic Franchisium B in the Army as the 61-mechanic Franchisium B.

B. On March 23, 2017, in accordance with the resolution of the disciplinary committee, the Defendant imposed a reprimand (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the violation of the duty of confidentiality (other security regulations) (hereinafter “instant act”) as follows.

On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff’s “documents describing the direction to operate the arm’s length and the arm’s length tag (III)” (hereinafter “documents 1”) and “documents 2” (hereinafter “documents 1”) and “documents 2”.

(C) On April 20, 2017, the appeal review committee for the 20 Mechanical Assistants in the Army dismissed the above appeal on June 28, 2017. [Judgment of the court below] The second document with the advance notice delivered on February 1, 2017, which was reversed, was reversed by mistake and omission of the first document (pre-written notice: January 20, 2018) with no confirmation of confidentiality in the document envelope while destroying the second document with the advance notice delivered on February 1, 2017.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition was unlawful, in violation of Article 59(2) of the Military Personnel Management Act, with no opportunity to make sufficient statements by the Disciplinary Committee. 2) The instant disposition was based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s instant act constituted a negligence of destroying secrets in violation of Article 53 of the Military Security Regulations of the Army, which led to the Plaintiff’s act as grounds for disciplinary action. However, at the time of the said act, at the end of the year, the Plaintiff’s duty was concentrated, and the notice was kept in a single document bag and a second document.

arrow