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 October 12, 2016, at around 18:20 on October 12, 2016, the Plaintiff, while driving a Cwing-3 cargo vehicle in front of the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, Seoul, caused a traffic accident (personal damage: 2 persons on the face) by violating the duty of safe driving, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as measures for the relief of casualties.

B. On November 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (Class 1 common) of a motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on January 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s age of D students; (b) the Plaintiff is maintaining a livelihood by carrying out trucking transport services; (c) the Plaintiff’s identity license is essential to provide care to and support for the Plaintiff’s wife who is under the operation of waste cancer; and (d) the injury of the traffic accident victims is minor.

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 relevant disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed within the administrative agency’s internal business affairs rules, and it is not effective externally to the public or the court. The issue of whether it is legitimate should be determined not only in accordance with the above criteria but also in accordance