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

A. On September 5, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s Class I ordinary driver’s license (E) on September 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “Around August 22, 2013, the Defendant driven DNA vehicles in the core state of blood alcohol concentration of 0.126% in front of the Daejeon Pcafeteria B cafeteria, and assaulted a drinking control police official.”

B. On April 25, 2014, in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Ma3855, the Plaintiff driven a DNA vehicle in the state of drinking 0.126% of the blood alcohol content to the front of the C cafeteria located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon at around 22:40 on August 13, 2013. On the same day, at around 22:45, the Plaintiff was found guilty of the facts constituting a crime of injury, obstruction of the performance of official duties, violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the conviction of the Daejeon District Court on April 16, 2014.

On June 11, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17130 Decided June 11, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17130 Decided the dismissal of a final appeal became final and conclusive by judgment. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Eul 1, 23 through 25, and the purport

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not drive a drinking alcohol, and was arrested illegally without notifying the principle of domination, but did not assault police officers.

B. Determination

1) Even if the facts acknowledged in the original civil or administrative litigation are not bound by the facts established in the criminal trial, the facts recognized in the judgment of the relevant criminal case are the precious evidence in the civil or administrative litigation, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the facts opposed to those recognized in the relevant criminal case unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu324, Sept. 13, 1983).

2) On the other hand, according to the criminal facts found in the judgment of conviction as seen earlier, a legitimate ground for the instant disposition is recognized.

원고는 음주운전단속결과통보서(갑 13호증)가 위조되었다고 주장하나, 을 6 내지 8호증(각 공문서로 진정성립 추정되고, 위조사실을 인정할 증거가 없다)의 각 기재에 의하면 음주운전단속결과통보서상 음주운전측정장소 "C식당 앞"은 음주감지기를 사용한 장소를, 최종음주일시 2013-8-13 22:40"은 음주감지기를 사용한 일시를, 입헹굼여부 "헹 굼"은 미헹굼을 각각 착오, 기재한 것으로 보이고, 그로 인하여 음주운전측정결과 "0.1260%"가 조작된 것으로 볼 수 없다. 또한 입헹굼을 하지 않고 측정한 혈중알콜농도 0.126%는 신뢰할 수 없고, 불법 체포를 당하였을 뿐 경찰공무원을 폭행하지 않았다.는 원고의 주장은 이미 확정된 유죄판결의 판단을 통해 받아들여지지 않은 것으로 확

There are no special circumstances to recognize the facts contrary to the established conviction.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.