1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which partially accepted the part of the judgment, is as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the second to nine (2) except for the partial modification of the grounds set forth in the second to nine (2)), and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The provisions of paragraphs 6 to 20 (1) and 2 of the first instance judgment are amended as follows.

1) Article 180 Subparag. 1(a) of the Disciplinary Rule of the Army Regulation defines “the abuse of authority” as “the act of allowing a public official to perform an act for which he/she is not obligated to do or interfering with the exercise of his/her rights.” The definition of the Army Regulation does not vary with the content of Article 123 of the Criminal Act that prescribes the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights. However, the former Enforcement Rule of the Military Disciplinary Rule (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Defense, Sept. 20, 2018

(2) The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Defendant is against the Defendant

(2) Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act provides that “All public officials shall observe the laws and regulations and perform their duties in good faith” under subparagraph 1(b) of attached Table 1.

In light of such various provisions, in a case where a soldier interferes with the exercise of rights by abusing authority, it is reasonable to view that a soldier’s abuse of authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights by abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights may constitute “the abuse of authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights by abusing authority

However, the fact that a soldier had a subordinate of his/her duties perform an act other than his/her duties cannot be deemed as having violated the duty of good faith immediately, and that a soldier abused his/her authority or forced a subordinate of his/her duties to perform an unfair act beyond social norms.