1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a Chinese national, and the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) on September 30, 2008, and was changed to the status of stay for overseas Koreans (F-5) on October 5, 2010, and stayed.

B. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for one year due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant crime”) (hereinafter “instant crime”), and became final and conclusive on July 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff fell under a person subject to deportation under Article 11(1)3 and 4, and Article 46(1)3 and 13 of the Immigration Control Act; (b) was a Chinese national; (c) voluntarily attended the Plaintiff; (d) made and submitted a voluntary written promise of departure; and (d) made a departure order (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 68(1)1 of the same Act, taking into account the need for personal and household settlement hours.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff thought that the minor contact accident at the time of the instant crime was considered as a minor contact accident, and after being investigated by the police, compensates for all damages, and was detained for the suspension of execution. Since the plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea without any criminal punishment except the instant crime, the plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea in good quantity without being subject to any criminal punishment. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to fall under Articles 11 (1) 3 and 41 (1) 4, and Article 46 (1) 3 and 13 of the Immigration Control Act, and there is no ground for the instant disposition. 2) Even if the ground for the instant disposition exists in domestic affairs, if the plaintiff does not ask the foreigner's anti-social nature as shown in the instant crime on the ground that there was criminal power, and all of the foreigners are subject to departure order, the opportunity to return to society in the probation system is not granted to the foreigner.