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. The Plaintiff, as a Korean Chinese national of the People's Republic of China, entered the Republic of Korea on December 9, 2007, as a sojourn status for visiting employment (H-2).
B. On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the suspension of indictment for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) by the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office”) in 2013. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1,000,000 as the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da9423 on July 14, 2016.
C. On January 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a departure order based on Articles 11(1)3 and 4, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the suspension of indictment on November 27, 2013 was not sufficient to conduct an investigation, and thus illegal disposition for which suspicion is not proven, and the offense of assault, the prosecution of which was decided to have no right of prosecution on November 18, 2015, constitutes self-defense that the Plaintiff’s act of assault, which was subject to a summary order issued on July 24, 2016, is deemed to have been committed once a week in opposition from the victim under the circumstances fit for construction safety appearance. The offense of assault committed in the summary order issued on July 24, 2016, was committed while the Plaintiff was committed with severe assault to the extent that the Plaintiff would have caused serious threat to the life, and is merely against the other party in the process of displaying the hand.
As such, although the plaintiff's previous convictions are minor or not constituted a crime, the defendant issued the disposition of this case based on mistake of facts, and since the plaintiff lives in Korea for about 13 years and all of the basis of living are in Korea, the disposition of this case is illegal to abuse discretion.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. On March 201, 2011, the Plaintiff was recognized.