1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for twenty years for murder (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5290 Decided December 27, 2002) and was transferred from the Red Prison to a private prison on March 8, 2013, and is currently being executed in the official prison.

Article 214 Subparag. 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Execution and Treatment of Prisoners (hereinafter “instant violation”) that the Plaintiff was found to possess one broom without permission around 07:00 on June 13, 2014 and that the Plaintiff violated Article 214 Subparag. 15 of the same Act.

B. On June 20, 2014, pursuant to Article 107 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) and Article 228 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 831, Nov. 17, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act”), the Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff a disciplinary measure (hereinafter “instant measure”) that suspends or restricts treatment under subparagraphs 4 through 13 of Article 108 of the Punishment Execution Act and Article 112(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 831, Nov. 17, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act”) for the following reasons, the Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure that prohibits or restricts treatment under subparagraphs 4 through 13 of Article 108 of the same Act on the same day after the disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee.

The instant disposition was now executed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the circumstances, etc. in which the Plaintiff asserted that he had resided in good faith, the Defendant’s disposition of this case against the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff had “brooms” rather than dangerous goods, is unlawful since it abused discretion, and thus, should be revoked.

(b).