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A. On January 23, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driving license, and was revoked on April 3, 2002 by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.119% under the influence of alcohol level on February 22, 2002.

On October 25, 2002, the plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver's license on October 25, 2002. On July 20, 2003, the plaintiff driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.112% under the influence of alcohol level on July 20, 203. In addition, on September 27, 2003, the driver's license was revoked again. On October 20, 2004, the plaintiff acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver's license.

B. On December 29, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of alcohol control at C in front of the road located in Ansan-si B. At the time, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was confirmed to 0.073%.

C. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license as of February 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had driven at least three occasions.

On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal against the Commissioner of the Police Agency.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4 through 6 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content is 0.073% at the time of the measurement of alcohol, and the blood alcohol content at the time of the measurement of alcohol, which may be less than 0.05% at the time of the operation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol abuse may fall under the category of less than 0.05% at the time of the operation. (2) The Plaintiff’s blood abuse abuse of discretionary power inevitably driven a motor vehicle parked in a different place, not a large amount of drinking, and the distance of the vehicle driven without a large amount of drinking, is relatively short; (3) as the driver’s license is revoked, it is difficult to care when the driver’s license is revoked.