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 court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① a worker who has taken a drinking test did not notify the Plaintiff of the principle that he did not do so, and even after a certain period of time has passed after drinking water, the instant disposition was unlawful in the course of taking a drinking test while making a drinking test at a driver’s seat, and ② the Plaintiff was engaged in the duty of driving the drinking-water in Aberland, but the license was revoked, and the Plaintiff did not have to do so. The Plaintiff currently maintained his livelihood with the construction site at the time of the detection of drinking, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, and the drinking-water level at the time of the detection of drinking is 0.057% that corresponds to the cause of the suspension of the 100-day license. In light of various circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful because the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff is excessively high compared to the need of public interest.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 6 and 8 of this case’s procedural illegality, the Plaintiff’s consent to the police officer’s request for measurement at a drinking control place, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff responded to the measurement after the police officer conducted a drinking test before the drinking test. On the other hand, there is no evidence to recognize that the control police officer did not notify the Plaintiff of the doctrine and did not have an opportunity to put the Plaintiff into water in a state of illegal arrest, and there is no procedural defect in the disposition in the instant case’s disposition. 2) Whether there was deviation from or abuse of discretionary power is a reason for suspending the driver’s license by a person who conducted a drinking driving more than twice under the proviso of Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.