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 as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the following judgments are added. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Plaintiffs did not actually receive an opportunity for re-measurement through blood collection on the wind to explain the Plaintiff as a person subject to disposition of suspension of license even though the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s person subject to disposition of suspension of license. Although there exist circumstances to suspect the accuracy of the result of blood measurement by a drinking gauge, so long as the result of blood measurement is not conducted by means of blood collection, the Plaintiff cannot prove the fact that the Plaintiff was drunk. Considering the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff that the control police officer could have been able to take blood collection at the time of blood measurement, and the Plaintiff’s renunciation of blood collection. The Plaintiff’s notification of an ordinary expected administrative disposition based on the breath test method is recognized only on the ground that it is different from the administrative disposition issued by the control police officer based on the records of breath test. Moreover, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff cannot be seen as unfairly deprived of the Plaintiff’s opportunity for re-measurement through blood collection. Furthermore, the judgment of this case’s breath test results cannot be deemed legitimate.