1. On June 12, 2017, the Defendant’s decision to maintain the current treatment rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 8, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to seven years of imprisonment with prison labor for violating the National Security Act (organization, etc. of anti-government organizations) at the Seoul High Court on July 26, 2013, and was executing the sentence in the Daegu Prison after the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2013, and is expected to terminate the sentence on July 6, 2018.

B. In accordance with Article 66(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act, the Defendant conducted regular reexamination at the time of reaching 2/3 of the term of punishment.

As a result, the defendant decided that the plaintiff's individual treatment plan is the same as that of the existing treatment (S3).

C. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation with the Daegu District Court seeking revocation of the above security treatment decision (2016Guhap1402, hereinafter “prior action”).

However, the above court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on June 9, 2017 on the ground that the defendant's decision does not constitute a case where the discretion was exceeded or abused, in light of the fact that the plaintiff did not express his/her intent to educate or work for the defendant during the examination period.

The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is with the intention of the filing period. D.

On June 12, 2017, the Defendant conducted regular reexamination (hereinafter “instant regular reexamination”) at the time when he/she reaches 5/6 of the term of punishment against the Plaintiff.

Thus, from April 2016 to May 2017, the defendant maintained the current treatment that the plaintiff's security and treatment rate is maintained as a general security and treatment rate (S3) equivalent to the previous treatment after deliberation and resolution by the Classification and Treatment Committee, on the ground that the plaintiff's evaluation income rate from April 2016 to May 2017 did not meet at least seven points.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 and 5

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion.