1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the judgment became final and conclusive, and was admitted to the Seoul Southern Detention Center managed by the Defendant from September 13, 2018 to December 11, 2018, and is currently being executed in the Seoul Southern Detention Center.

B. On December 7, 2018, the Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure on the Plaintiff under Article 107 Subparag. 1, Article 108 Subparag. 14, and Article 114(1) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) and Article 215 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the 21st day of the suspension of execution (the grace period: from December 7, 2018 to February 6, 2019), for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Around 12:20 on November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff reported the Plaintiff’s cleaning of toilets in B’s room in which the Plaintiff was admitted, and the Plaintiff agreed to stop fighting in the Plaintiff’s entrance, and did not report one another by failing to report the Plaintiff’s fighting in the Plaintiff’s manner. (a) D expressed that “The Plaintiff’s cleaning of toilets is prompt, clean, and pedagogy, and dysia must grow up,” and (b) C took a bath to the Plaintiff’s drinking once. (c) At the time of the Plaintiff’s drinking, the Plaintiff fighting fighting was conducted on one occasion at the left eye of D’s drinking, and the Plaintiff did not report one another.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Defendant did not accommodate D, a patient suffering from mental illness, in a solitary ward; (b) even if he was admitted to the same ward as the Plaintiff, D did not properly pay his mental and medicine to D; and (c) during that process, D was committed to defend the Plaintiff; and (d) it constitutes self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act; and (c) there is room for the Plaintiff to be punished as a crime of assault any further after mutual compromise with the Plaintiff.