1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Based on Article 12(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013), the Plaintiff obtained permission to possess the following two recommended guns from the Defendant.

Manufacturing number No. 3-707D 04-7601 on March 11, 201, 201, the name of the manufacturer's firearms on the date of permission No. 3-707D 1, 2009

B. On June 23, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke all permission to possess the said two guns on the ground of “disqualifications (for public safety) after possession” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 47(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Control of Firearms”) against the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of all the circumstances, including the Plaintiff’s occupation, career, family environment, specific details and details of existing criminal records, and the Plaintiff’s use of guns that have been safely possessed in accordance with the procedures, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a case deemed necessary to maintain public safety” as stipulated under Article 47(1) of the former Inspection and Control of Firearms Act on grounds that the Plaintiff may revoke permission to possess guns.

The instant disposition is unlawful by excessively expanding the public safety and restricting the citizens’ right to freedom, which constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) After obtaining permission to possess the above two guns from a person engaged in a computer repair business, the Plaintiff was kept in custody in the life order system of the Seoul Dobong Police Station, but used mainly for hunting purposes by releasing winter iron. 2) The Plaintiff has the following power.