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

A. On October 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the Class 2 ordinary driving license on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.102% on October 13, 2015, on the ground that: (a) around 23:53, the Plaintiff driven the blood alcohol content of the Plaintiff; and (b) around October 13, 2015.

B. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 22, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-5 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Considering the Plaintiff’s final drinking time and the point of time of driving, etc., the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving has risen. The result of blood alcohol concentration on which the instant disposition was based is likely to have been measured higher than the actual blood alcohol content measurement. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of driving under the instant disposition exceeds 0.10%. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) Considering the various circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the Plaintiff’s request of the principal agent of the instant case who made the deduction of the vehicle on the day of the instant disposition, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant disposition was 0.102% higher than the blood alcohol content at the time of driving under the Plaintiff’s discretion, the instant disposition by the Defendant is unlawful by abusing its discretionary power.

B. 1) In an administrative litigation on the existence or absence of a reason for disposition, even if not bound by the facts established in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment which became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence in the administrative litigation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be recognized that it is difficult to adopt a criminal judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 1999). This case is subject to the foregoing.