1. On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s filing date of the above disposition on November 22, 2016, in the column of the complaint’s claim.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and E are students who were enrolled in the first and sixth grade of D Middle Schools around November 2016.

B. On November 22, 2016, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence at D Middle Schools decided to request the Defendant to take measures against the Plaintiff, based on Article 17(1)2, 3, (3), and (9) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence (hereinafter “School Violence Prevention Act”), such as the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against victim students, three days of service at school, one hour of special education, one hour of special education, and one hour of special education for guardians.

C. On November 28, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the measure of contact with victim students, prohibition of intimidation and retaliation, three days of service at school, one hour of special education at school, and one hour of special education for guardians, in accordance with the resolution of the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence at D Middle Schools.

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education Administrative Appeals.

On August 31, 2017, the commission revoked only the Defendant’s three-day disposition of service at school during the disposition taken on November 28, 2016, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

(hereinafter) The remaining part of the Defendant’s disposition taken on November 28, 2016, which was revoked in the ruling, that is, the prohibition of contact, intimidation and retaliation against victim students, one hour in special education, one hour in special education for guardians, and one hour in special education for guardians, hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant’s disposition was not disputed, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 6 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 F이 E를 때리는 것을 보고 F의 폭행을 제지하다가 E가 “난 안 아프니까 너도 때려보라.”고 권유하면서 오른팔을 내밀기에 E를 때리기 싫어 손등으로 E의 오른팔을 1회 툭 밀쳤을 뿐이므로 원고가 E를 폭행하였다고 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, it is true.