자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of revocation of a driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) issued by the Defendant on December 6, 2017, on the grounds of suspicion that the Plaintiff failed to comply with a drinking test by a police officer at least three times without justifiable grounds, even though there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she was engaged in drinking at around 00:25.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was likely to have been erroneous or erroneous due to the pulmonary test result or the pulmonary test itself due to the Plaintiff’s failure to reach the general public, and the Plaintiff faithfully responded to the pulmonary test at the time of police officer’s request.
It is not so.
Even if the Plaintiff took a 10-hour volume after drinking, and was subject to the drinking control, and without considering such circumstances, the Plaintiff’s demand for a police officer’s measurement, based on the premise that there was a considerable reason to demand a drinking test solely on the ground that the walking was in secret, without considering such circumstance, is illegal.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 through 7 and the purport of the entire oral argument, the Plaintiff stated in the police investigation that he/she dices alcohol on Nov. 22, 2017. As such, the Plaintiff was requested to take a drinking test after the lapse of one hour and 30 minutes after drinking. In the circumstantial statement at the time of control, it is written in the circumstantial reading driver’s statement at the time of control in the state of speech and behavior (e.g., heavy string), walking conditions (e., heavy string), blood color (e.g., red string), and the police officer’s refusal to affix his/her signature on the circumstantial statement of the drinking driver. At the time of the investigation report, the Plaintiff stated that he/she only dices into the main driver’s statement or was very less pulmonary volume at the time of the investigation report.