자동차운전면허취소처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under Paragraph (2) below to the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasized as the reason for appeal, that is, the plaintiff's assertion that "the blood alcohol level from the time of drinking alcohol driving to the time of measuring blood alcohol level has 0.1% or more, so it shall not be determined that the blood alcohol level at the time of drinking alcohol level was 0.1% or more," and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main
2. Additional determination
A. Even if the distance between the time of driving and the time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration and the time appears to increase the blood alcohol concentration, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed impossible to prove that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual driving exceeds the punishment threshold.
In such cases, whether a person can be deemed to have been above the standard value of punishment even at the time of driving shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by evidence, such as the time interval between driving and measurement, the difference between the measured blood alcohol concentration and the standard value of punishment, the continuous time and quantity of drinking, the driver’s behavior level at the time of driving regulation and measurement, and the situation of the accident if there is a traffic accident, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6285 Decided October 24, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6477 Decided July 25, 2019, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2018Do6477, Oct. 24,
According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff dices alcohol in the vicinity of the upstream of the Sejong-dong in Suwon-si from March 4, 2019 to 23:00. On the same day, at around 23:00 of the same day, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle from the place and driven a vehicle to the airfield shooting distance of about 165 m, 50 meters away from the border line of Suwon-si, Suwon-si. The Plaintiff stopped the vehicle at the two-lanes of the length of the airfield.