1. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant’s contact, intimidation, and contact with the victim students and the reported and accused students against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and E are students who were enrolled in the 1st 8th 2016 D High School.

B. On December 20, 2016, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence at D High Schools (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”) opened the 6th autonomous committee, and held a meeting on the issue of apology, which the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff by E after the resolution of the 4th autonomous committee, on the 19th autonomous committee (hereinafter “instant case”). On December 30, 2016, the Defendant decided on the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation against the Plaintiff with the reported and accused students, and the special education of the Plaintiff and his/her guardian pursuant to Article 17(1)2, (3), and (9) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence at School (hereinafter “the Act on the Prevention of School Violence”) that: (a) on the 4th autonomous committee’s resolution, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff with each of the reported and accused students on the 4th autonomous committee’s specific education time and retaliation against each of the reported and accused students (hereinafter “instant meeting”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the autonomous committee should commission a majority of the total members as the representatives of parents elected at the parents’ conference or the representatives of each class, the Defendant commissioned the members of the autonomous committee without going through such procedures, the instant disposition is unlawful due to the defect in the organization of the autonomous committee. 2) The Plaintiff’s substantive defect did not open to the public any defamation or insult statement to E, and the content of the disposition is also before E.