1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired a driver’s license (B) on 1993, while driving the C SP car at around 22:55 on October 6, 2014, while driving, was exposed to the crackdown on drunk driving by driving approximately 100 meters from the off of the echeon Terminal to the front of Da.

B. Accordingly, on October 7, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition suspending the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for 100 days on the ground that the Plaintiff was driving under influence as above.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on October 16, 2014, but was dismissed on December 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) that the Defendant did not confirm the final drinking time while regulating the Plaintiff’s drunk driving, and that the Plaintiff’s final drinking time is 22:43, it is difficult to avoid the possibility of excessive measurements due to remaining alcohol in the mouth, etc. by conducting a alcohol measurement at a time when approximately 17 minutes have not passed since the Plaintiff’s respiratory measurement was conducted.

Since the plaintiff was at the time of rise in blood alcohol concentration at the time, it is highly likely that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the actual driving is less than 0.050% by measuring the alcohol level from 22:55 to 6 minutes past the time when the plaintiff stops and makes the final driving by drinking control.

On the other hand, in the case of the measurement by the respiratory tester, there may be problems with the accuracy and reliability of the measurement result, and in light of the fact that the error scope of the pulmonology is 【0.05%, the Plaintiff’s measurement cannot guarantee objectivity and accuracy.

In addition, although the plaintiff demanded re-measurement by the re-measurementr at the time, it is illegal that the defendant refused it and thereby violated the procedure under Article 44 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

(2) The Plaintiff is undergoing a promotion review as an active duty soldier, and the instant disposition becomes final and conclusive as is.