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

A. The Plaintiff, as a male of Chinese nationality, entered the Republic of Korea on June 10, 201 as a short-term visit (C-3) and continued to stay with the permission to change his/her status of stay on August 19, 201, as a general training (D-4), June 24, 201, and on April 6, 201, as an overseas Korean (F-4).

B. On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and 2 years of suspended execution for a violation of the Framework Act on Fire Services in Seoul Southern District Court 2020 Godan9 decided on May 27, 2020, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The criminal facts are as follows.

On November 14, 2019, at around 17:52, 2019, the Defendant (Plaintiffs) stopped in the signal atmosphere by C fire engines called up to the hospital near Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to transport non-pulmonary patient to the hospital, and tried to have the window of the fire engine attached to the beer and forced to open the front door of the fire engine, and from the fire engine members called up to the police officer called up to “Iser during the mobilization of first-aid service.”

“In view of the word “,” the police officer sent to the police did not turn on the way for more than three minutes until he is arrested by the police officer, thereby obstructing the dispatch of fire engines.

(c)

On August 4, 2020, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea until September 3, 2020 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes the subject of compulsory eviction under Articles 46(1)3 and 13, and Article 11(1)3, 4, and 8 of the Immigration Control Act, but the Defendant voluntarily expressed his/her intent of departure.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence of No. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s act of violation of the law was caused by the mistake of the first-aid vehicle as a taxi in a state of mental and physical weakness while under the influence of alcohol, and there was no awareness that the purpose was to interfere with the activities of the first-aid service or public peace.

The plaintiff is against the above crime, and there is no other criminal punishment.