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) Egypt, which is the Plaintiff’s nationality country, is high to the extent that the vulnerable country index belongs to the world 34, and thus, the Plaintiff is protected by public authority in Korea or is unlikely to receive a fair trial. If the Plaintiff is unable to perform or cannot be held as a State, gambling by a private person should be recognized as gambling for a refugee, and the threat of the B organization constitutes gambling for a refugee. 2) A public official who was in charge of the first refugee interview on the Plaintiff’s sentence was subject to disciplinary action on the ground that the record of refugee interview was falsely prepared.

There is no credibility in the first refugee interview protocol regarding the plaintiff's punishment.

It cannot be said that there was no threat to the B organization due to the lack of credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement on the ground that the above refugee interview protocol regarding the Plaintiff’s punishment without credibility and the Plaintiff’s statement are different.

B. According to the reasoning of each judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (including the number of each branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact that Egypt’s vulnerable country index is high, and that some refugee interview records against the refugee applicants using Egypt were prepared differently from their statements, including the time when the first refugee interview investigation regarding the plaintiff’s punishment was conducted, from September 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018, including the time when the first refugee interview investigation was conducted.

However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements Nos. 3, 7, and 8 of Eul, namely, the Plaintiff’s imprisonment, at the time of the second refugee interview investigation on September 2, 2018, was the Plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of a fire in his office after September 2017.