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 judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff at the court of first instance is not different from the argument at the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's claim is justified even if the evidence submitted at the court of first instance showed the statement or image of evidence Nos. 12 and 13 submitted at the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows, except for the following '2. height of order', and therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts in height:

A. If the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is followed, the 10th to 14th sentence is as follows.

Therefore, the possibility that the actual blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving is lower than 0.051% of the blood alcohol concentration that was measured with the blood alcohol concentration increaseer (not less than 30 minutes to 90 minutes after drinking) after about one hour after driving the instant disposition that was taken on the premise that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving is 0.051% is unlawful.

B. On the third and third sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “5, 7, 8, and 12” as “5, 7, 8, 12, 19, and 20.”

C. On the 3rd and 8th to 19th of the first instance judgment, the term “at the time of driving” is as follows.

Even if the blood alcohol content between 30 minutes and 90 minutes after drinking reaches the highest level, the Plaintiff did not drink all alcohol on the date of the alcohol measurement at 22:20 minutes, but 4/5 degree of alcohol in Japan (720m, 14.8%) over about 60 minutes from 21:20 to 22:20, and the Plaintiff stated in the written complaint as such.

On the other hand, when making a statement in the police, the police stated that they were drank from 21:00 to 22:10;

It cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking alcohol measurement was higher than at the time of drinking alcohol testing.

As above, the Plaintiff did not have a significant amount of drinking alcohol, and the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol.