Hello, I am Sang-yoon Eom, attorney at Cheongchul Law Firm.

Military personnel (soldiers) and civilian military employees (군무원), owing to the special nature of their status, are subject to disciplinary procedures separate from those for ordinary public officials. Resulting heavy disciplinary measures such as removal (파면) or dismissal (해임) do not merely cause the loss of current status, but have broad and lasting effects extending to social life after discharge, re-employment, and pension entitlements. Accordingly, where the commencement of a disciplinary procedure is anticipated or already underway, it is very important to accurately understand and prepare in advance for the procedural rights guaranteed at each stage and the responses available.

In particular, on September 19, 2025, the Ministry of National Defense (MND) partially amended and implemented the 「MND Directive on Disciplinary Affairs for Military Personnel and Civilian Military Employees」 (hereinafter the 'Disciplinary Affairs Directive'), reorganizing the detailed operating standards for the investigation and hearing procedures; the content of this amendment must also be understood. Today, focusing on the Military Personnel Act (군인사법), the Military Disciplinary Decree (군인 징계령), and the above Directive, we examine the entire process of MND disciplinary procedures and the practical response directions at each stage.

[Overview of Military Disciplinary Procedures]

Military discipline is carried out pursuant to Article 56 et seq. of the 「Military Personnel Act」, the 「Military Disciplinary Decree」, and the 'Disciplinary Affairs Directive' that gives them concrete effect.

First, regarding the grounds for discipline, Article 56 of the Military Personnel Act provides for (i) violation of the Military Personnel Act or orders issued thereunder, (ii) conduct that damages dignity, and (iii) violation of official duties or neglect of duty; where any of these applies, the disciplinary authority must request a disciplinary resolution from the disciplinary committee and impose a disciplinary measure in accordance with its decision.

Next, regarding the types of discipline, Article 57 of the Military Personnel Act classifies them into (i) heavy discipline—removal, dismissal, demotion, and suspension—and (ii) light discipline—reduction of pay, confinement-reprimand (근신), and reprimand (견책). Removal and dismissal deprive a soldier of their status itself; demotion lowers the rank by one grade (provided that demotion from officer to warrant officer, or from non-commissioned officer to enlisted soldier, is not permitted); and suspension entails suspension from duties for one to three months together with a reduction of two-thirds of pay. Reduction of pay (감봉) reduces one-third of pay for a period of one to three months, confinement-reprimand (근신) requires reflection at a designated place within the barracks for up to 10 days, and reprimand (견책) ascertains the misconduct and admonishes.

The disciplinary authority is, in principle, the commander of the unit to which the person subject to disciplinary review belongs, and in some cases the Minister of National Defense serves as the disciplinary authority. Under the Disciplinary Affairs Directive, the disciplinary committee is composed of 5 to 7 members including one chairperson, and members are appointed from among officers, general civilian military employees, or general public officials who hold positions senior to the person subject to review. For a disciplinary committee concerning a civilian military employee, two or more general civilian military employees or general public officials must be included to ensure balance in the review.

[Investigation and Hearing Procedures — Procedural Rights Guaranteed at Each Stage]

According to the 'Disciplinary Affairs Directive,' disciplinary procedures generally proceed in the order of (i) receipt of the disciplinary case and assignment of a disciplinary number, (ii) investigation by the disciplinary investigator (collection of evidence such as statement records, written statements, and confirmation of rewards and punishments), (iii) preparation of a fact-finding report, (iv) approval by the disciplinary authority and request for a disciplinary resolution, (v) hearing and resolution by the disciplinary committee, and (vi) execution and notification of the disciplinary measure.

The procedural rights guaranteed to the person subject to disciplinary review at each stage of this procedure are as follows.

1. Opportunity to make a statement: Under Article 59 of the Military Personnel Act, the Military Disciplinary Decree, and the Directive, the disciplinary committee must, before the hearing, notify the person subject to review of the hearing date and time in advance, have that person attend and hear their opinion before commencing the hearing, and afford the person a full opportunity to make a statement in writing or orally. Affording such an opportunity to make a statement is an embodiment of the constitutional principle of due process, and a disciplinary measure imposed without substantively affording this opportunity may become grounds for revocation due to a procedural defect.

2. Right to appoint a representative: Article 14 of the Disciplinary Affairs Directive expressly provides that the person subject to disciplinary review may appoint an attorney or a person of learning and experience as a representative to make supplementary statements and submit evidence regarding the disciplinary case. This provision guarantees that the person subject to review may substantively exercise their right of defense with the assistance of a legal expert; in particular, in cases where heavy discipline such as removal or dismissal is anticipated, it is essential to receive a representative's assistance from the investigation stage.

3. Manner of conducting the hearing: The hearing proceeds in the order of (i) the secretary's reading of the gist of the alleged facts, (ii) questioning by the chairperson and members, (iii) final statements by the person subject to review and the representative, (iv) discussion among members after the person and representative withdraw, and (v) resolution by secret ballot. In this process, the person subject to review is guaranteed the opportunity to submit favorable evidence, contest the alleged facts, and assert mitigating circumstances.

[Procedures for Challenging Disciplinary Measures and Control of Discretion]

Where a disciplinary measure has been imposed, a person who objects to it is provided with two stages of challenge procedures: appeal (항고) and administrative litigation.

First, regarding the appeal, Article 60(1) of the Military Personnel Act provides that a person who has received a disciplinary measure may, with the assistance of a human-rights judge advocate, appeal within 30 days from the date of receiving notice of the measure to the head of the unit or agency at the next-higher level of the disciplinary authority, commanded by a general-grade officer. Where the Minister of National Defense is the disciplinary authority, the appeal is made to the Minister; the appeal review committee that reviews the appeal is composed of 5 to 9 officers senior to the appellant, and one of them must be a judge advocate or an officer versed in law. The appeal review committee may revoke or mitigate the original measure but may not impose a heavier measure than the original.

Next, where a person also objects to the decision on the appeal review, they may file an administrative lawsuit (revocation suit) within 90 days from the date of receiving notice of the decision, before the administrative court having jurisdiction over the location of the original disciplinary authority. However, it should be noted that for disciplinary measures against military personnel, the so-called principle of mandatory prior appeal (항고전치주의) applies, so that, as a rule, an administrative lawsuit cannot be filed directly without going through the appeal procedure (Article 51-2 of the Military Personnel Act).

The scope of review by the administrative court can be summarized in three points: (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and (iii) whether there was a deviation from or abuse of discretion. In particular, regarding the criteria for determining deviation from or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court has held, as established doctrine, that although the disciplinary authority's exercise of discretion should in principle be respected, it is unlawful only where the measure has clearly lost validity under generally accepted social norms, and that such determination must comprehensively consider various factors including the content and nature of the misconduct, the administrative purpose to be achieved through discipline, and the standards for the level of discipline (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du47472, November 9, 2017, among others).

[Response Directions by Stage and Practical Points to Note]

First, at the investigation stage, it is important to (i) accurately recognize, before making a statement to the investigator, the procedural rights afforded to you (the right to remain silent, the right to a representative's assistance, etc.), (ii) carefully review, before signing and sealing the statement record, whether its content conforms to your true intent, and (iii) organize and secure favorable evidentiary materials (explanatory statements, exculpatory materials, favorable witnesses' written statements, etc.) at an early stage. Since the investigative materials formed at this stage become the basis for the subsequent hearing and resolution as well as the appeal and administrative litigation, note that the initial response greatly influences the eventual outcome.

Next, at the disciplinary committee hearing stage, it is necessary to (i) appoint an attorney or the like as a representative under Article 14 of the Directive to receive assistance, (ii) systematically submit materials contesting the alleged facts and mitigating circumstances (an exemplary service record, remorse and intent to prevent recurrence, circumstances of restored relations with the victim, etc.) during the hearing, and (iii) use the opportunity for final statements to clearly present your position. Furthermore, immediately upon being notified of referral to the disciplinary committee, you should apply to inspect and copy the disciplinary records to confirm what evidence exists regarding your alleged misconduct, which enables an effective response.

At the appeal stage, you must (i) respond promptly within the short period of 30 days from the date of notice of the measure, (ii) actively utilize the assistance of a human-rights judge advocate or an attorney, and (iii) systematically organize procedural defects and substantive defects (non-existence of grounds, deviation from or abuse of discretion, etc.) in the statement of appeal grounds so that it may serve as the basis for the appeal review committee's review. In particular, since the appeal is effectively the last administrative-stage opportunity to have the original measure mitigated, a substantive response at this stage is very important.

Finally, at the administrative litigation stage, it is necessary to (i) strictly observe the 90-day filing period from the date of notice of the appeal decision, (ii) contest first the existence of the grounds for the measure and any procedural defects, and (iii) meticulously organize, assert, and prove the argument of deviation from or abuse of discretion by reference to the specific determining factors identified in Supreme Court and lower-court precedents (the nature of the misconduct, service record, efforts to remedy harm, equity with similar cases, etc.).

However, the above response directions are no more than general guidelines, and the best strategy available may vary greatly depending on the specific case. In particular, in cases where heavy discipline such as removal or dismissal is anticipated or has already been imposed, the safest way to enhance the ultimate possibility of remedy is to receive, from the early investigation stage, the assistance of an attorney with practical experience in military discipline and administrative litigation, objectively diagnose the case, and establish a stage-by-stage response strategy in advance.