출국명령처분취소
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 November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was a Chinese national, and was staying in the Republic of Korea as a visiting employment (H-2) status on November 12, 2012 and extended the period of stay on two occasions, and the expiration date of the period of stay is September 11, 2017.
B. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “instant crime”) and became final and conclusive on January 29, 2016, on January 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to deportation under Articles 11(1)3 and 4, and Article 46(1)3 and 13 of the Immigration Control Act; (b) but is a Chinese national, and (c) was subject to departure order (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 68(1)1 of the same Act, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff is a Chinese national; and (d) the time for personal and domestic settlement is needed.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The crime of this case alleged by the plaintiff was committed by the plaintiff while trying to assist in the same fee, and the circumstances leading up to the accident will be taken into account. The plaintiff's act is likely to lead to the plaintiff's attitude of law, anti-value, anti-social tendency inherent in the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no record of criminal punishment other than the crime of this case, and the crime of this case is divided into the crime of this case and deposited a considerable amount of money for the victim. The suspension of execution is decided in consideration of the fact that the plaintiff has been living in the Republic of Korea in good faith while staying in the Republic of Korea, and the plaintiff is residing together with Chinese wife and his father, and if the plaintiff leaves the Republic of Korea, his livelihood would prevent the plaintiff from living with his family, and the plaintiff will stop residing in Korea with his family in Korea. The disposition of this case is too harsh to the plaintiff and it is unlawful to abuse discretionary power by the defendant.
(b) the board;