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 judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is added with respect to the plaintiff

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. (1) On the existence of the grounds for disposition, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a person subject to departure order under Article 11(1)1, 3, and 4 of the Immigration Control Act.

Therefore, the order for departure of this case is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.

(2) Article 68(1)1, Article 46(1)3, and Article 11(1)1, 3, and 4 of the Immigration Control Act provides that the head of a regional immigration office may order the departure of a person who voluntarily intends to depart from the Republic of Korea at his/her own expense, from the Republic of Korea, as “patients with infectious diseases, addicts to narcotics, or other persons deemed likely to cause harm to public health,” “persons deemed likely to engage in conduct detrimental to the interest or public safety of the Republic of Korea,” “persons deemed likely to engage in conduct detrimental to the economic or social order, or good morals.”

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4-3 and the argument as a whole, although the plaintiff is not a handler of psychotropic drugs, the plaintiff accepted 85 times at a strokem, which is a psychotropic drug, as defined in Article 2-3 (d) of the Narcotics Control Act, on four occasions from November 22 to December 2013, 2013, and received 85 times at a strokem, which is a psychotropic drug, as defined in subparagraph 3 (d) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and received strokem, among strokes on December 2013, 2013, and confirmed the judgment.

The "Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc." in the case of a stroke-m as alleged by the plaintiff.