1. On November 30, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of 3 days service at a school rendered to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At the time of 2017, the Plaintiff was enrolled in the second year in the D Middle School.

B. The Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence at D Middle Schools (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) requested the Defendant to take measures against the Plaintiff on November 20, 2017, on the ground that “the Plaintiff classified the head of E, who was beyond the training activities in 2017, as his/her hand, thereby causing physical damage, and caused emotional harm to the Plaintiff by leaving his/her name into a hand.” As such, on the ground that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to take measures of three days of service at a school under Article 17 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Act”), two hours of special education (Paragraph 3), two hours of special education (Paragraph 9), two hours of special education of guardians (Paragraph 9).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant measure”). C.

Accordingly, on November 30, 2017, the Defendant taken the instant measure against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the language and purport of the School Violence Prevention Act, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 3, and 7’s overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to view the Plaintiff’s act as the ground for the instant disposition constituted “school violence” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the School Violence Prevention Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1. First, the Plaintiff reported school violence on the ground that “nine students, such as E, continued to take an examination and bath, demanded gifts, forced the Plaintiff to go on a high day, and forced them to do so, and forced them to do so by broom expression,” and the D Middle School autonomous committee on October 31, 2017 shall take measures pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 17(1) of the School Violence Prevention Act against eight students, such as E, etc.