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 concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's assertion under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. On the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful because it constitutes an emergency evacuation and abuse of discretionary authority to drive a vehicle properly 10 meters in the wind that a substitute driver parks in order to make it impossible to pass a runway due to the end of drunk driving.

① However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff drank one of 500 locks after the driving of alcohol. Even if the Plaintiff drank the above quantity, considering the blood alcohol level at the time when considering 0.142% of the blood alcohol level at the time, it cannot be deemed that the blood alcohol level at the time when the Plaintiff was driving was less than 0.1%, which is the criteria for cancelling the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

(2) In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the vehicle was urgently required for the passage of alleyway at the time, and even if the distance is merely ten meters, it cannot be deemed to offset the necessity of public interest for the prevention of traffic accidents caused by drunk driving.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.