The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On December 21, 201, the Plaintiff, including the background of the disposition, acquired a Class 1 ordinary driver’s license.

On May 16, 2019, at C convenience stores in Jeju, 04:54, the Plaintiff, while driving a DNA lush vehicle with blood alcohol concentration of 0.132% on the road in front of the convenience store in C, was damaged by shocking the columns on the right side of the road.

On July 5, 2019, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant drinking driving.

On July 30, 2019, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 10, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to actively cooperate with the investigative agency’s investigation of the instant drinking driving, and the Plaintiff, as a reporter, is essential to operate a vehicle in the course of commuting to and from work and coverage, and has family members and economic difficulties.

In light of the above overall circumstances, the instant disposition is erroneous in deviation from or abuse of discretion.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the circumstances in question. If the disposition standards are prescribed by Presidential Decree or Ordinance of the Ministry, it shall be deemed that the disposition standards are not in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws, or that the punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above disposition standards are considerably unfair in light of the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, and