1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 25, 2016, at around 01:55, the Plaintiff driven B vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.069%, and was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the control of the police on the front road of Suwon-dong, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong.

B. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s Class 2 ordinary driver’s license pursuant to Article 93(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had been in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, but the Plaintiff was driving the third time.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on September 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 7 (Provisional Number Sheet), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s last alcohol level measured from around 01:45 on March 25, 2016 to 02:05 on the same day when approximately 20 minutes passed from around March 25, 2016, was 0.069% of alcohol level.

In light of the fact that blood alcohol concentration does not rise in the average point of time in proportion to the flow of time at the same point of time, but rise rapidly after the lapse of time, it is highly probable that the Plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was less than 0.05% at the time when the Plaintiff driving the said vehicle and reached the road front of the above heading 1.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had proved without any reasonable doubt that the blood alcohol level was 0.05% or more at the time of driving the said vehicle, and the instant disposition premised thereon is unlawful.

(b) The following circumstances, i.e., each of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence No. 15-11-13, Eul evidence No. 3-6 (including paper numbers), and the testimony of the witness C, added to the overall purport of the pleadings.