1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Relevant legal principles

A. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused from the scope of discretion under the social common sense, the determination shall be made by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by individuals by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of violation, and all the circumstances in question. In such a case, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial Ordinance (referring to "Ordinance" of the Ministry of Administration, i.e., the Enforcement Rule), it is nothing more than that prescribed within the administrative agency's internal business rules, and the determination of legitimacy of the pertinent disposition must be made in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, as well as the above criteria for disposition. Thus, the pertinent disposition cannot be deemed legitimate immediately in conformity with the above criteria for disposition. However, if the above criteria for disposition do not in itself conform with the Constitution or laws, or if the administrative agency’s punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above criteria for disposition is considerably unreasonable in light of the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it should not be determined that the discretionary disposition has been abused or abused its discretion (see, 2007.

B. On the other hand, a person who has obtained a driver’s license has driven alcohol while taking special account of the danger caused by “driving of alcohol.”