beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 1, 2005, when the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.063%, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.063%, and the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.084% on January 24, 2010, and was under the influence of alcohol 0.084% on two or more occasions. On June 30, 2016, the disposition of this case was revoked as of July 21, 2016, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 0.078% in the influence of alcohol 0.0,000; (b) the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol 22:25% in the influence of alcohol 0; and (c) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol 2: (c) the Plaintiff driving a BNS car in front of the agricultural and fishery products market located in the Pyeongtaek-dong region in the city and re-driving it again, by applying Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. At the time, the plaintiff asserted that he had a substitute engineer for drinking alcohol in Suwon City and had a sexual Nam city with the plaintiff's office. The plaintiff was asked by his wife to contact with him and request him to leave the substitute engineer to a solar view, which is his domicile, but was rejected. The plaintiff had another substitute engineer for driving the vehicle directly on the wind that he had no other substitute engineer for driving the vehicle in the vicinity of Sucheon-si, Sucheon-si.
Considering the various circumstances of the Plaintiff, including the fact that the Plaintiff’s drinking alcohol level was not high along with these driving circumstances, the previous drinking alcohol level was considerably long, the Plaintiff engaged in the food materials supply business, the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is essential, and the Plaintiff’s license is revoked due to the failure to pay outstanding amounts and a large amount of obligation, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case constitutes a case where the Plaintiff is excessively harshly abused and abused the Plaintiff’s discretionary power.
B. Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 13829, Jan. 27, 2016) is under the influence of alcohol.