1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case was on August 1, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license on the ground that “the Plaintiff driven a D vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.098% on July 17, 2014, by driving it at least three times under the influence of alcohol level.”

The key issue of this case is whether the disposition of this case was an abuse of discretion.

B. The court of first instance acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was subject to a disposition to revoke the driver's license on the ground that he/she driven under the influence of alcohol on July 25, 2003 and July 23, 2012, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.096% on the ground that he/she driven under the influence of alcohol on July 25, 2003, and 0.112% on the ground that he/she driven under the influence of alcohol on July 23, 2012. According to the proviso of Article 93(1) and Article 93(2) of the Road Traffic Act, the head of the competent local police agency must revoke the driver's license on the ground that the person who driven under the influence of alcohol on at least two occasions falls under the cause of suspension of the driver's license on the ground that he/she drives under the influence of alcohol again, and therefore, the disposition

2. The judgment of this court and the judgment of the court of first instance are the fact that the plaintiff, even in the trial, should use the vehicle for his family's livelihood, medical expenses, etc., and that the plaintiff's crackdownd by drinking alcohol was not harmful due to luminous cancer. Thus, the disposition of this case is illegal as it deviates from and abused discretion. However, as the court of first instance decided, the disposition of this case is not a matter of discretionary power and abuse itself as a binding act in the case of the disposition of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified.

Therefore, the court's explanation of this case is justified for the judgment of the first instance court.