1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On February 18, 2005, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Grade IV prosecutor in the original district prosecutor's office, and was promoted to the Grade VI prosecutor's office on June 15, 2015. From November 16, 2015 to the Grade IV prosecutor's office.

On July 13, 2018, at around 23:45, the Plaintiff operated a NAS car under his/her control while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.145% at the 10-meter section from the Do in front of the CSP driving range to the road after the building on the same Do.

On October 10, 2018, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office General Disciplinary Committee decided to take one month of suspension from office against the Plaintiff's act of drinking alcohol, and the Defendant issued a one-month suspension disposition against the Plaintiff on October 19, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the appeals review committee, but the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review on December 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleading. The plaintiff, on July 13, 2018, was parked on the road in front of the above Cscke golf practice center, which is the main place of his/her own vehicle, and tried to return home by drinking with the scken golf practice center, by using the substitute driving around 20:20.

However, as the above vehicle was examined on the side, there was a lot of waste and a variety of street trees in the surrounding area, and cargo cars were parked in very close distance, and there was a concern that the plaintiff's vehicle has exceeded 50cc away from the parking 50cc or more, and it might obstruct or damage the passage of many mothers.

Therefore, the Plaintiff only intended to move the said vehicle to a parking area away from a few meters away, and did not have any idea to return to the Plaintiff after driving, and the police officer, who had to go to the Plaintiff, required to take a drinking test after the parking was completed.

As such, the Plaintiff did not have the intention of driving under the ordinary influence of alcohol.