1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s demotion disposition against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015 is revoked.

3...

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is unlawful inasmuch as the date, time, place, etc. of the facts subject to disciplinary action are not specified according to the grounds for disciplinary action of the instant case, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. (ii) The absence of grounds for disciplinary action and the extinctive prescription, and the instant grounds for disciplinary action were 5 to 6 times with mutual agreement with Jung-young D from October 11, 2012 to May 2013. “The Plaintiff did not maintain improper relations with D after March 2013.”

Therefore, there is no reason for the disciplinary action.

In addition, the date of a request for disciplinary decision against the plaintiff is April 30, 2015. Thus, the two-year period of prescription has already expired for the misconduct before April 30, 2013.

B. It is as stated in the relevant laws and regulations attached thereto.

C. Around March 2015, the Central Investigation Team of the Army conducted an investigation into D’s cases of cruel suspicion. Three investigators (including one military investigator) belonging to the investigation group of the said investigation group conducted an investigation into D’s cases of cruel suspicion. From March 26, 2015 to March 16, 2015, at the coffee shop located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, on the basis of the relationship between D and the Plaintiff, and the relationship between D and E. At that time, E entered into a dialogue on the following: (i) whether he/she has a inhuman relationship between D and D; (ii) whether he/she has a inhuman relationship between D and D; (iii) whether he/she has a inhuman relationship between D and D; and (iv) whether he/she has a inhuman relationship between the Plaintiff and D; and (iv) whether he/she has an inhuman relationship between the Plaintiff and D; and (iv) whether he/she has an inhuman relationship between the Plaintiff and D’s unknown relationship; and (iv) the investigation report was made on March 27, 27, 2015.