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

A. On May 21, 2017, the Plaintiff, while driving a B taxi on May 21, 2017, caused a traffic accident while staying in the vicinity of the Dogs of the national highway No. 25 located in the Gu-U.S. P. P. 536 of the Gu-U.S. P. S. P. Dog-ri.

B. The police officer, who belongs to the police station of the previous U.S. police station, was called for after receiving an accident report, and the Plaintiff was snicked and breadous, and the Plaintiff was requested from the police officer to 18:15 on May 21, 2017 to 18:25 on the ground that the Plaintiff was snicked and snicked, but was not measured.

C. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking a driver’s license (Class I large and Class I common) as of July 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol measurement without justifiable cause.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 13 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 이 사건에서 음주측정 요구를 받고 2회는 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉을 한 것이 맞지만, 나중에는 제대로 입김을 불어 넣었음에도 음주측정기가 정상적으로 작동하지 않았거나 경찰관의 조작 미숙에 의하여 음주측정이 되지 않은 것인바, 음주측정 거부를 이유로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. 1) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 12 and Eul evidence Nos. 12 and 5, the following facts can be acknowledged. D, which is a police officer demanding a drinking measurement on the day of the instant case, is a witness in a criminal case of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of Drinking Measures) with the same contents as the instant case.