1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff is a public official working as the director of the Changwon District Education Office B, and is currently in office at the Gyeongnam Education Facility Supervision Group.

B. On March 23, 2016, around 01:57, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol while driving a road in front of the upper south-dong of the Changnam-gu, Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-si as a passenger vehicle. As a result of the control, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at 0.05% with blood alcohol concentration.

C. On May 4, 2016, the prosecutor of the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office: (a) recognized the Plaintiff as having been suspected of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) with respect to driving under the influence of alcohol, and issued a disposition of suspending indictment (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspending indictment”). D.

On July 11, 2016, the Personnel Committee of the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education decided to punish the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by driving under the influence of blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%, and that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain the dignity of public officials by making a statement without disclosing the status of public officials at the time of enforcement, and the Defendant was notified thereof to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

1) On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a constitutional complaint seeking revocation of the suspension of indictment of this case under the Constitutional Court Decision 2016Hun-Ma563, the Plaintiff filed a constitutional complaint seeking revocation of the suspension of indictment of this case. 2) On April 27, 2017, the Constitutional Court measured the Plaintiff’s pulmonary measurement of blood alcohol level by one-time 0.05% in a state where 30 minutes have not elapsed from the final drinking time to the point where the Plaintiff was not at the end of 30 minutes from the final drinking time. This violates the procedures for the control of drunk driving, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff’s actual blood alcohol level at the time of control falls under 0.05%, and thus, the suspension of indictment of this case, which was found guilty, violated the Plaintiff’s right to equality.