1. The Defendant’s discharge from active service on August 18, 2017 is revoked.

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

The Plaintiff was assigned to the Army as Staff Staff on May 25, 2001, and served as an education and training assistant or noncommissioned officer in the B Group from April 22, 2009 to August 25, 2017.

On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to three-month suspension from office due to a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (sexual assault, etc.) as follows by the head of the Army Team.

The plaintiff did not dispute the above disciplinary action separately.

On November 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff met with D’s wife E in social network services C and met for the first time in February 2017.

After that, the plaintiff has been aware that he/she has husbands and children, and brought about to E several times.

3. He commitmented to Ethical tasks with Staff.

The Plaintiff had sexual intercourses with E and E at the Mancheon and the Mandae River between 1-2 times a week, etc., and on May 16, 2017 and May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff continued to contact with E, despite being aware of the fact that he/she had associated with E, but was aware of the fact that he/she had been affiliated with E, the Plaintiff was dismissed once again from the F located in the Government on May 25, 2017.

Accordingly, the plaintiff violated his duty to maintain dignity as a soldier.

On August 17, 2017, the Military Personnel Management Act referred the Plaintiff to the Military Service Review Committee, and the Military Service Review Committee decided to discharge the Plaintiff from active service on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under the category of “person who lacks the ability to make decisions” under Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act, Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, “Article 56(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act,” “persons who interfere with their duties or damage military dignity,” and “Article 2(2)2 of the Military Personnel Management Act,” and “persons who destroy military unity.”

On August 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff a disposition of discharge from active service without being discharged from active service, in accordance with the resolution of the Military Headquarters Review Committee.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition.” The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, and the appeals review is conducted with the Military Manpower Headquarters Review Committee.