1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant issued the instant disposition on September 9, 200, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the B cargo while under the influence of alcohol of 0.143% on September 18, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.110% on January 13, 2012 and was under the influence of alcohol on two occasions. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven the B cargo while under the influence of alcohol of 0.086% on July 30, 2015 and was under the influence of 0.22:25% on the part of 0.25% on the part of 0.25% on the part of 3rd alcohol, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 common account) as of September 12, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The time when the Plaintiff renders a drinking test after the Plaintiff’s alcohol control is the rise of blood alcohol level. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol level at the time of driving exceeds 0.05%. 2) The Plaintiff is engaged in the fire-fighting equipment business under the current condition of delay and is in need of driving for the purpose of livelihood since the Plaintiff is obliged to transport materials, etc. to the nationwide industrialized workplaces. When the driver’s license is revoked, it is very difficult for his family to live. The blood alcohol level measured at the time of the instant crackdown is not high, and the blood alcohol level is not high, for the last three years, there was no history of drinking driving or traffic accident, and there were many voluntary activities in the ordinary local community. In full view of all the circumstances, the instant disposition constitutes a case where the Plaintiff is excessively harsh and abused from discretion.

B. As to the first argument on the first argument, even if there is an interval between the point of time and the point of time between the point of time when the blood alcohol concentration was measured and that time appears to increase the blood alcohol concentration, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed insufficient to prove that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual operation exceeds the penalty standard.

. In such cases.