1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the supplement of the first instance court's decision, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's decision. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

2. Supplement of judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Pakistan, the Plaintiff’s country of nationality, is high to the extent that the vulnerable country index occupies the world 23th century, and thus, the Plaintiff’s protection by public authority or fair trial is low. If the Plaintiff is unable to perform or are unable to perform the duty of protection as a country, it shall be recognized as gambling by a private person for a refugee, and the threat of Islamic believerss constitutes persecution for a refugee. 2) The Plaintiff consistently stated the reasons why the risk of his/her gambling is likely to occur.

There is no credibility in the plaintiff's statement due to some disagreements in detail that there was no threat to Islamic believerss.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (the number of them is included in each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the weak country index of Pakistan is high, and that the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff was threatened by Islamic believers.

However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6, i.e., the plaintiff, around December 2016, stated that the plaintiff was threatened by Islamic believerss, and that there is no consistent statement as to the essential contents that may recognize persecution, such as making statements in the refugee interview in January 2017, and ② the plaintiff submitted data on the fact that police report and father are party members at the time of refugee interview investigation on May 2, 2019.