1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on the road front of a screen golf course located in the Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu Northern-gu on January 13, 2014, the Defendant is driving D rocketing car under the influence of alcohol by 0.146% of alcohol level (hereinafter “instant drinking driving”).

(2) On the ground that Article 93(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 12917, Dec. 30, 2014) imposed a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of March 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)1 of the same Act.

B. On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 25, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around January 13, 2014, after drinking alcohol and making a payment by credit card from around 23:32 on the same day as the 18-minutes passed, the Plaintiff conducted a drinking alcohol measurement by means of a drinking measuring instrument at around 23:50 on the same day as the 18-minutes passed. However, even before the drinking alcohol measurement, the Plaintiff did not have any means to control the drinking alcohol again on the road, and did not change again on the wind that the controlling police officer demanded high-tension measurement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be readily concluded that the level of drinking alcohol at the time of driving falls under the blood alcohol level higher than that of the actual blood alcohol level, which is 0.1% or more, which is the criteria for the revocation of driver’s license. (2) At the time, the Plaintiff did not demand for a drinking alcohol measurement again by means of an excessive measurement of blood alcohol level by means of measuring the remaining alcohol level at the time, and did not demand a re-measurement by the police officer.