1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 16, 2016, around 07:57, the Plaintiff is driving B automobiles at the front of the Korean movable guard, which is located in 251, Saun-ro 251, Paundong-gu, Busan.

The driver did not perform his/her duty of rescue measures, etc. but went away from the site of the accident even though he/she caused a traffic accident requiring two-way medical treatment to the victim.

(hereinafter “instant illegal act”). B.

On September 28, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 2 common) pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the instant illegal act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 13, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused discretion, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff left the scene of the accident, where she was frightened by her father’s care; (b) the Plaintiff was not punished for drinking; and (c) the revocation of the driver’s license for four years was harsh.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal rules for handling affairs of administrative agencies, and it is not effective externally to the public or court