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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The reasoning for this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiff asserts that, if he returns to Egypt, who is a nationality state, the plaintiff had been present in the demonstration opposing the Muslim group, there is a well-founded fear of persecution from the Muslim group or the police on the ground that the plaintiff had been present in the demonstration.

However, in full view of the political situation, judicial system, religious policy, the Plaintiff’s entry route, and the background of the application for refugee status recognized by the evidence adopted by the first instance court cited earlier, it does not seem that there is a sufficient well-founded fear to deem that the Plaintiff is likely to be injured on the grounds of religion, social group’s status, political opinion, etc.

The submitted data alone cannot be deemed as having engaged in political or religious activities meaningful in Egypt to the extent that it can be used as the basis for recognizing refugee status.

According to this, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion as above.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed because it is without merit.