2017Gudan6042 Revocation of revocation of driver's license

A person shall be appointed.

The Commissioner of the Gyeonggi-do Police Agency

Hong○○, Lee ○, Cho ○, Cho ○○

December 6, 2017

January 17, 2018

1. On June 15, 2017, the Defendant’s revocation of the driver’s license (Class I ordinary) against the Plaintiff on June 15, 2017.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 15, 2017, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for his/her own car stated in the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a car under the influence of alcohol on April 22, 2017: 55 with a blood alcohol content of 0:129%.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 14, 2017, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on July 18, 2017.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff put the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called inging on the preparation of 5 to 10 minutes. Since the above-mentioned blood alcohol concentration was found even before the control of drinking of this case, the Plaintiff merely driven under the influence of alcohol.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff was drafted on April 22, 2017, 20: 20: 55 drinking driving control, and was measured by the respiratory measuring instruments on the same day after the same day: 21:02 pulmonary meters, and the blood alcohol concentration was 0:129% from 0. 129% from the blood alcohol concentration, and the plaintiff did not request the police officer at the time to measure the blood collection. On the same day, at around 22:0 on the same day, the plaintiff was found to find the ○○ Police box and did not request to measure the blood collection because he did not have a mind at the driving site, but the police officer refused to collect blood within 30 minutes from the on-site measurement, and the police officer was found to have refused to collect blood within 30 minutes from the National Institute of Drug Collection at around 23:34 GOO and around 1, 207 on the same day, and the fact that the blood collection was within 0:70% from the National Institute of Water Collection.

On the other hand, according to the result of the verification conducted on December 6, 2017: 14: 15, the blood alcohol content was 000% when the Plaintiff measured the first pulmonary measuring instrument, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff made the green lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid she puts into a water at the time of the instant drinking control, five minutes, and made it possible for the Plaintiff to put in a water into a water, and the blood alcohol content was 0.360% as a result of the second lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid she was found to have been 097% when the Plaintiff started to put in a water again, and the Plaintiff was coming to a water.

According to the above circumstances, even if the Plaintiff made a special effort to lower the level of alcohol content of a police officer’s eye after pulmonary measuring instruments, such efforts could be made from 21:02 to 22:00, so it was difficult for police officers to withdraw special measures that left the above hours because they find an original high-priced police box from 0:00 to 0, and thus, it was difficult for them to withdraw such special measures. Generally, blood alcohol content is 30 to 90 minutes after 20% of alcohol content in 0:00 to 03% of alcohol content in 0.0 per hour after the Plaintiff reached the highest level of alcohol content. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s pulmonary alcohol concentration from 0:0 to 03% of alcohol content in 20% from 0:00 to 10% of alcohol content in 20% from 20:0 to 30% of blood pressure measuring instruments.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is inappropriate, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is decided as per the disposition.

For the purpose of transfer to judge