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 issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case was on April 24, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff driven a passenger car under the influence of alcohol by 0.092% of the blood alcohol content around 21:58, and on May 7, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license for the automobile (Class 1 large, Class 1 ordinary, Class 1 special (bitr), and Class 1 special (biter).

The key issue of the instant case is ① The blood alcohol concentration was measured too much due to the side effects of the drugs called the Plaintiff’s anti-smoking, which are the Plaintiff’s usual anti-driving drugs, and the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was applied to the blood alcohol concentration at the time of blood alcohol control based on the Plaintiff’s drinking volume. In light of whether the blood alcohol concentration was below 0.05%, and whether the revocation of the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol content was legitimate in addition to the first-class ordinary driver’s license, and first-class, first-class, first-class, first-class, and first-class, first-class (bitr, racker) driver’s license in addition to the first-class ordinary driver’s license, and whether the control police officer did not notify the Plaintiff that he could collect blood from the Plaintiff during the process of drinking control, or whether there was a defect in the blood alcohol measurement procedure, such as unfairly infringing an opportunity

B. As to the issue(1) Item(1) at the court of the first instance, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration is more excessive than the actual ones due to the side effects of the drugs, “A” No. 3-1 and No. 2. The court of the first instance determined that the instant disposition is legitimate on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s statement on the volume of alcohol or the time of drinking, which is the premise of the application of the Badmark, is not consistent and it is difficult to apply the Badmark because the Plaintiff’s statement on the volume of alcohol or the time of drinking, which is the premise of the application of the Badmark, can trust the blood alcohol concentration

(2) With respect to the issue, the court of first instance shall be the person.