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

A. The Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), entered the Republic of Korea on December 5, 2017, with D-4 (General Training) sojourn status granted on February 8, 2019, was changed to D-2 ( study abroad) sojourn status granted on February 8, 2019, and is in attendance at B University from March 4, 2019.

나. 원고는 2019. 12. 19. 서울북부지방검찰청으로부터 “원고가 2019. 5. 19. 서울 강북구 C 앞 중앙차로 미아사거리역 방면 버스정류장에서 버스를 기다리기 위해 앉아 있는 피해자의 다리 부위를 소지하고 있던 스마트폰의 카메라 어플 ’QQ'를 사용해 피해자의 의사에 반하여 촬영하였고, 이를 카메라 어플 ‘QQ' 모멘트(SNS 일종)에 업로드 하려던 중 미수에 그친 것이다.”라는 범죄사실로 기소유예 처분(이하 ‘이 사건 불기소 처분’이라 한다)을 받았다.

C. On March 24, 2020, the Defendant issued an order for departure under Article 11(1), 46(1)3, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on April 23, 202 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked for the following reasons.

1. The instant disposition is written only in the applicable law of disposition, and the Plaintiff’s specific violation is not written, and even in the case of applicable law, it does not specify whether it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

Furthermore, the Defendant presented to the Plaintiff a notice of review on the immigration offender immediately before the instant disposition, but did not deliver it, and prior to the instant disposition.