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

A. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff was issued a non-prosecution disposition of suspension of indictment (hereinafter “instant non-prosecution disposition”) from the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office on the ground that he/she smoked marijuana while entering the Republic of Korea on August 24, 2018 as tourism and Tong (B-2) sojourn status and staying in the Republic of Korea on August 24, 2018.

B. After that, on February 7, 2019, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea until March 8, 2019 based on Articles 11(1)3, 68(1)1, and 46(1)3 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry B in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the fact that the Plaintiff smoked marijuana in the United States before entering the Republic of Korea. After entering the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff made a false confession that the Plaintiff smoked marijuana after entering the Republic of Korea in the process of undergoing an investigation by the prosecution, even though he did not have smoked marijuana, and accordingly, the non-prosecution of the instant case was ordered.

However, even though the facts that the Plaintiff smoked marijuana after entering the Republic of Korea are not true, the instant disposition constitutes grounds for the prohibition of entry under Article 11(1)3 of the Immigration Control Act, based on the premise that the alleged facts are true. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful since the grounds for the disposition do not exist.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the instant disposition is acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the statement and the entire pleadings, including the evidence mentioned above.