beta
Text
1. On February 27, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of the driver’s license for the Plaintiff on February 27, 2015 is a Class II driver’s license.
Reasons
1. The defendant, on November 10, 2003, notified the plaintiff that he was driving three times on the grounds of revocation of the driver's license in accordance with subparagraph 1, subparagraph 2-3, and subparagraph 2-3, that the plaintiff was driving on two occasions under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.086% on August 25, 2006, and that the plaintiff was driving on two occasions under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.10% on February 1, 2015, although he was under the influence of alcohol of 0.10% on February 1, 2015, the reason why he was driving on B (hereinafter "the vehicle in this case") under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.1% on the grounds of revocation of the driver's license, and in the written decision of revocation of the driver's license, the defendant specified that he was driving under the influence of blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% on the grounds of the above disposition.
On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I, Class I, Class II, and Class II) was revoked as of March 21, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Taking into account all the circumstances, including: (a) the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant control is more than 0.10% at the time of the instant control, considering that the alcohol measurement was conducted at the time when approximately 47 minutes were 40 minutes from the final drinking point at the time of the instant control; (b) the blood alcohol content at the time of the blood alcohol level increase; and (c) there is a possibility that there is an error in the drinking measuring machine, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant control exceeds 0.10%. (b) The Plaintiff’s driver’s license is necessary to operate the active fish retail, and it is anticipated that the cancellation of the driver’s license would cause many difficulties in living; (c) the instant alcohol driving is closely against the Plaintiff; and (d) there is no fact that the instant