1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 15:30 on August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to control by police officers assigned to the Gohap Police Station C police box, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the signal while driving the bndway of Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

B. At the time of enforcement, the police officer D, who belongs to the above C police box, issued a penalty payment notice to the Plaintiff, and the assistant E, who was at the same time, returned to the police officer, who completed the issuance of the notice. The Plaintiff, misunderstanding E’s son’s son as a bath, followed the part of E by making a mistake.

C. After that, on October 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking a driver’s license (class I ordinary and class II ordinary) as of November 16, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff assaulted a police official performing traffic control duties as above.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 12, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number if there is a separate number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the verification of Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The police officer E, who used violence by the Plaintiff, is not a police officer who controlled traffic, but a police officer, at the time of the Plaintiff’s assault, issued a penalty payment notice and completed traffic control affairs. As such, there is no reason to impose a disposition that “a police officer performing traffic control duties,” and there is no reason to impose a disposition that “a police officer performing traffic control duties,” and the Plaintiff’s abuse of discretionary power was carrying heavy stones on the cargo, but the Plaintiff caused the occurrence of the risk of the occurrence of the accident, and the police officer E took a bath after enforcement, thereby resulting in the instant case. E’s drinking ceremony is not a correct self-defense.