beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.31 2017구합22383

출국명령처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a Chinese national in the Republic of Korea, and is currently staying in the Republic of Korea as an overseas Korean (F-4).

B. On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was found to have committed a special injury on the following criminal facts and was convicted of one year of suspended sentence (Seoul District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court 2017Ma137) for six months of imprisonment. The said judgment became final and conclusive on July 7, 2017.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a Korean national of Chinese nationality who entered Korea as a member of the organization tourism visa on December 21, 2010, and currently stays in Korea as a member of the overseas Koreans, and is working in G in G in G in G in G in G in G in G in G in G in Gyeong-gun in North Korea, and the victim D (year 22) is a volunteer who works in the same factory as that of Sri Lankan nationality.

At around 08:20 on April 14, 2017, the Defendant, along with the victim at the above C plant, inflicted an injury on the victim in an open kneeee in need of approximately two weeks of treatment on the right side, on the ground that the victim was faced with the part of his/her ship by pushing the drainage route, during the work process, on the ground that the victim was faced with the part of his/her ship by pushing the drainage route.

Accordingly, the defendant used dangerous objects to inflict bodily injury on the victim.

C. On July 19, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily depart from the Republic of Korea until August 17, 2017, pursuant to Articles 11(1)3 and 4, 46(1)3 and 13, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act.

hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was in the Republic of Korea no longer than the Plaintiff’s past record of having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, without considering the contents of the judgment or the normal relationship.