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 court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. On the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

On April 27, 2017, the Constitutional Court: (a) deemed that “the time when the alcohol measurement against the Plaintiff was conducted was made was the rise in blood alcohol concentration; and (b) it cannot be readily concluded that the actual blood alcohol concentration of the Plaintiff constitutes 0.05% because the remaining alcohol content in the drafting is likely to be measured together; and (c) thus, the instant disposition of suspending indictment against the Plaintiff was erroneous in the investigation findings or erroneous determination of facts affecting the decision, and thus, revoked the instant disposition of suspending indictment.

B. Once the first instance judgment was rendered, the first instance judgment Nos. 4 and 11 through 19 are as follows.

A) The instant disposition was taken on August 5, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by driving under the influence of alcohol level 0.05% on the ground that the instant disposition was taken on August 5, 2016 due to the prosecutor’s instant disposition of suspension of indictment, and the Constitutional Court’s revocation of the instant disposition of suspension of indictment on the ground that there was an investigation failure or mistake of facts. (B) Before the Plaintiff’s resolution on July 11, 2016 at the Standing-do Office of Education (hereinafter “the instant Committee”) was made by the police officer on July 11, 2016, “Before the instant disposition of suspension of indictment was taken,” the police officer conducted a drinking measurement on the Plaintiff without making a plan for 20 minutes after drinking in violation of the traffic control guidelines, and the level of alcohol level measured by the police officer did not reach 0.5% of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level measurement.