beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (b) No. 1 and No. 2; and (c) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations added or emphasized by the plaintiff in this court as stated in the following 2.
2. Details of the further determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Regarding the disciplinary measure of the instant case No. 3, there may be cases where the number of documents is necessary for receiving assistance in the lawsuit even in the case of a general meeting. However, prohibiting the Plaintiff from holding documents with a counsel meeting or a special meeting is unconstitutional as it discriminates against a prisoner who intends to hold a general meeting without reasonable grounds, and infringes on the Plaintiff’s right to defense to receive documents for preparing a lawsuit. In addition, the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff was prohibited from holding documents in the meeting place or receiving documents with other prisoners. Since the interview waiting room is collected at one time, the Plaintiff is able to communicate with each other or receive documents, and thus, the disciplinary measure of the instant case No. 3, which was punished against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff delivered documents to another prisoner in the meeting room, is also contrary to equity.
3) Before the Defendant issued each of the instant disciplinary measures, the Plaintiff was confined to the disciplinary action, and the instant disciplinary measures did not “permission for writing, meeting, etc. for convicted prisoners’ edification or rehabilitation into society.” This goes against the presumption of innocence, the principle of excessive prohibition, the least infringement, and the prohibition of unfair decision-making. 4) The former Enforcement Rule of the Correctional Institution Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 831, Nov. 17, 2014).