(a) The Plaintiff, D, and E are students attending the third grade of C Middle School in the Yongsan-gu Busan Metropolitan City F.

B. At around 13:00 on September 1, 2016, the Defendant held the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence on September 20, 2016 on the ground that D used a cell phone for a student who was self-defluence in the first floor of the disabled, and the Plaintiff, along with D’s report of the video, identified the person recorded in the video as victim E, and provided a written message to other students, caused the victim to feel sexual humiliation and insult. On September 26, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on September 26, 2016, ordering the Plaintiff to “the suspension of attendance seven days, the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against the reported or accused student, five hours of special education for students, five hours of special education for guardians, five hours of special education for guardians, and written apology.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not directly photograph the motion picture, but merely received the motion picture from the court of first instance, and that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s parents are against the wrongness of the Plaintiff’s parents, the instant disposition was an unlawful act of deviation from and abuse of discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination is based on the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”).

According to Article 17(1) and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Violence Prevention Act, when taking measures under Article 17(1) and Article 17(1) of the same Act, the severity and sustainability of the school violence exercised by the aggressor student, the degree of reflectability of the aggressor student, the possibility of leading the aggressor student due to the pertinent measure, the degree of compromise between the aggressor student and the victim student and his/her guardian, and whether the victim student is a disabled student shall be determined based on consideration. 2)