beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.11.선고 2014누54013 판결

출국명령처분취소

Cases

2014Nu54013 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Departure

Plaintiff and Appellant

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney ○-○, et al.

Defendant, Appellant

Head of Ansan Branch Office of Incheon Immigration Office

Litigation performer ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○

The first instance judgment

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap20746 Decided June 11, 2014

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 7, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

November 11, 2014

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition for departure order issued against the plaintiff on December 11, 2013.

that the judgment

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court's explanation on the instant case is the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the Immigration Control Act Section 2.

'The former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 12421, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter 'the former Immigration Control Act')

"Law" is changed to "Act, and "Judgment on the legitimacy of the disposition of this case" in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Except as described below, part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than those used in Section 2-b.(c)(1)(a) as follows:

For the same reason, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply.

the same shall be quoted as it is.

2. Parts used for repair;

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether it falls under Article 46(1) of the Immigration Control Act

A) Whether the act constitutes Article 46(1)13 of the Immigration Control Act

Article 46 (1) 13 of the Immigration Control Act shall be subject to the release of imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment.

(1) "A person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment" shall be deemed to be a person subject to deportation.

whether or not a suspended sentence which suspends the execution of that sentence is included in the case of a suspended sentence, and 2. “Release”

"A person under detention" is subject to suspended execution without being detained in the investigation procedure and the trial procedure.

There is a problem whether the person declared also includes the person.

The term "a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment" referred to in the first provision shall be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment.

There is no basis to interpret only the case where the suspension of execution is not attached; and

The suspension of the execution of punishment is a system that suspends the execution of punishment for a certain period from the purpose of criminal policy.

It is not the kind of punishment, and there is no need to enforce the punishment compared with the sentence.

Since it cannot be readily determined that the above imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment is insufficient, the above "the punishment is imposed".

It should be viewed that the suspended execution is naturally included in the case of a suspended execution.

Furthermore, the following circumstances, i.e., Article 85 of the Immigration Control Act, upon enforcement of the sentence:

person who is under enforcement of a sentence shall be subject to the procedure of deportation.

As a matter of principle, the enforcement of deportation shall be enforced after the completion of the enforcement.

The purpose of Article 46 (1) 13 of the Immigration Control Act, "the person who was released", is to impose a penalty on him/her.

“A person who is not currently detained” due to termination or any other cause.

(1) The term "the person who was detained on the premise of the detention" shall be limited to the person who was released on the premise of the detention.

(2) The detention under the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be deemed to have been made by the defendant or the suspect.

(see Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., such as misappropriation of residence, destruction of evidence, or fear of escape)

In other words, it is only a means to secure the new illness, and it is not a punishment for the crime, so whether the detention is made or not.

It cannot be deemed that the degree of illegality or possibility of criticism of a person or a criminal act is shown.

(3) "The meaning of the release was detained in the course of investigation" as alleged by the Plaintiff.

(1) If it is interpreted to be limited, the court shall decide to suspend the execution of detention due to the grounds for detention.

(1) Where a person is subject to a suspended sentence and is subject to a suspended sentence without detention due to the absence of grounds for detention;

e. The former is considered as a person subject to deportation, and the latter is actually the same as a person subject to punishment.

(4) Detention of a suspect arrested under the Criminal Procedure Act

In the event that a warrant of detention is not requested or a warrant of detention is not issued, the term "to release" without delay.

On the premise of detention, such as the release under Articles 200-2 and 200-4 of the Litigation Act, etc.

In full view of the concept that is not that it is not that it is, “B” of the above provision must be “B”.

A person who has been released can not be interpreted only as "the person who has been released."

Therefore, even if the plaintiff was not detained in the course of investigation and trial (the plaintiff)

The crime of this case is likely to be released after being arrested as an offender in the course of investigation.

Unless he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in one year and six months, and is currently in a state of detention, a commissioner;

High Court Decision 46 (1) 13 of the Immigration Control Act is applicable to a person subject to deportation as prescribed by the Immigration Control Act.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion shall be decided.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge shall admonish a judge;

Judgment's normal rules

Judges Go Il-il