1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 17, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 1 ordinary) as of July 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a BNS car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.104% on the front of the Yang apartment-ro 17, a 16-ro, Busan Dong-gu, Busan, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a bN car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.104% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 31, 2017.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. From May 17, 2017 to May 20:40 to 20:50, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she was asserting that he/she was driving after drinking alcohol and was found to have been drunk at around 21:25, and was measured by the respiratory measuring apparatus at around 21:3, the result of the blood alcohol level measurement against the Plaintiff was measured at the rate of the blood alcohol level. Thus, the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is higher than the blood alcohol level at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving. The blood alcohol level at the time of the Plaintiff’s driving is likely to fall short of 0.1%; the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level at the time of his/her driving is unlikely to fall short of 0.1%; in order to enable the Plaintiff to visit the customer located across the country and maintain his/her family’s livelihood, the

1. F. In light of the fact that the instant disposition constitutes grounds for mitigation of the disposition standards prescribed under the above, it is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary authority.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 6-1 and No. 7 of the evidence No. 6-2, namely, the Plaintiff, at around May 17, 2017, at around 21:25, which was found to have been found to have a drinking alcohol test by the respiratory measuring apparatus, around 21:33, the blood alcohol concentration was measured to 0.104%, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was under investigation by the investigative agency, and was driving the bovine a half-generation.