1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a determination of addition as prescribed in paragraph (2). Thus, the reasoning of this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the actual blood alcohol concentration of the plaintiff is less than 0.1% in light of the measurement error of the drinking measuring instrument.

B. In light of the facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 4-8 and the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff was found to have been exposed to the police on July 27, 2017 due to a drunk driving around 03:14 and measured the respiratory level at around 03:39 on the same day. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the above facts and evidence are acknowledged: ① individual differences, but generally, the blood alcohol concentration at 30-90 minutes after drinking reached the highest level, and thereafter, reduced by approximately 0.08%-00-03% per hour (average 0.015%) (average 0.15%). The plaintiff was set up at the police station at the time of 2013: 1.10% after drinking alcohol measurement; 2.1% of alcohol level at the time when he was found to have been found to have been at a higher level than 90 minutes; 3.1% of alcohol level at the time when he was found to have been at the police station level.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.