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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the court's decision to the following two pages 5, 20 and 21 of the court's decision of the first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case based on such illegal drinking control is null and void, since it is unlawful that police officers who carry out drinking control fail to properly observe the National Police Agency's guidelines for traffic control.

However, the "Traffic Control Guidelines", which provides for the drinking control procedure, is only the internal guidelines of the National Police Agency, and there is no externally binding effect on the general public or the court. Thus, even if a police officer violates the above guidelines in the process of demanding a drinking test, it cannot be deemed that the request for a drinking test is illegal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8075 Decided February 9, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Du3017 Decided December 23, 2004, etc.). The Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.