logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.05.22 2015구단52473
자동차운전면허정지처분취소
Text

1. Class II driver's licenses issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 29, 2014 are revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 24, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired Class I ordinary drivers’ licenses, and Class II small drivers’ licenses on January 20, 200.

B. On October 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s respective driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on October 29, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff driven B Poter II truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with a blood alcohol level of 0.149%.

C. On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision on December 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 6, 10 evidence, Eul 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was conducted as a repulmonary survey after having been suffering from water at the time of the breath test, but the breath measurement was conducted due to the error of the breath measuring instrument, and the Plaintiff requested water at the time of the breath measurement, but the breath measurement was not conducted with water due to lack of water, and 0.161% of the breath measurement was conducted at around 23:34.

Since then, although the plaintiff requested re-measurement, the plaintiff was rejected, and the plaintiff, as a counterpart of the threat of living means due to the cancellation of the license, requested a measurement by blood gathering method with knowledge that blood samples have higher amount than the pulmonary measurement value, and then the 0.149% value of 0.00 around 24:0 is added.

Since the opportunity to dump dump to be placed in water is imminent, the re-measurement is refused, and there is no choice but to measure blood collection, there is a procedural error in the measurement for the plaintiff.

(2) When considering the fact that the blood alcohol level measured at the highest time when the blood alcohol level was measured is lower than the breathe level when the blood alcohol level was measured by the breath method, even though the breath level by the ordinary blood collecting method was higher than the breath level.

arrow