logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.12.01 2017구단10796
자동차운전면허정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 23, 2017, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol on the alleyway, following a scarlet 23 in the Oral ambroro, which was 23, and on the same day, the blood alcohol content was measured at 0.052% as a result of the pulmonary measurement conducted by the control police officer around 23:58 on the same day.

B. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to suspend the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 large and Class 1 ordinary) for 100 days (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven under the influence of alcohol as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The point at which the Plaintiff was running under the influence of alcohol corresponds to the rise of blood alcohol concentration, and taking into account the error of the other drunk, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol concentration of 0.052% is a correct drinking alcohol level. 2) The Plaintiff merely driven approximately 50 meters to park to another place on the day of the instant case and did not occur any accident; there have been no history of driving under the influence of alcohol and various volunteer activities; and the Plaintiff is in charge of the transportation duty and the suspension of his/her driver’s license is essential to drive, and the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion and is unlawful.

B. 1) Determination on the first argument: (A) In a situation where it is impossible to determine whether the point of drinking alcohol is the point of increase in blood alcohol concentration or the point of summer, even if the blood alcohol concentration measured at the point of time when the driving was completed exceeds the penalty threshold, the blood alcohol concentration measured at the point of time when the driving was completed.

arrow