1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal shall be the first instance.

1. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion added by this court is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise alleged in Paragraph (2) below; and (b) such assertion is acceptable as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an important means for the Plaintiff to maintain his family’s livelihood, and thus, the Plaintiff’s ground for mitigation of the disposition standards stipulated in Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act can be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition, which did not apply the mitigation criteria prescribed by the above Enforcement Rule, is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c)

Judgment

Article 91(1) [Attachment 28] of the above Enforcement Rule provides that a disposition shall be mitigated in cases where a driver becomes an important means to maintain the livelihood of his/her family in the item “(1) grounds for mitigation” of “1. Standard for Disposition” of the “General Standards” of the above Enforcement Rule, but the case where a driver causes a personal traffic accident while driving under drinking, etc. shall be excluded from the subject of mitigation, and even if there are grounds for mitigation under the above subparagraph(1), the Defendant grants discretion to decide whether to reduce the disposition after deliberation and resolution by the Review Committee, etc.

First of all, the instant accident is recognized as having suffered bodily injury from two victims aboard a taxi by shocking the taxi while driving his/her own car while drinking. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s driving is an important means to maintain his/her family’s livelihood, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff causes a traffic accident during drinking, and thus does not constitute a cause to reduce the disposition prescribed in the above Enforcement Rule.

B. The contents, form, and purport of the above provisions of the Road Traffic Act.