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 March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 28, 2017 while entering the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “Egypt”) and staying there in the Republic of Korea by tourist transit and visa (B-2).

B. On April 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition that does not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently based fear that she would be injured” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 13, 2017, but the decision was rendered to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on July 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff participated in a series of demonstrations from January 2012 as a general member of the Muslim type group, and was arrested by the police. After that, the Plaintiff’s substitute trial against the Plaintiff was conducted and sentenced to a final sentence on the grounds that the Plaintiff participated in the demonstration.

Therefore, if the Plaintiff returned to Egypt, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though it is highly likely that the Plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the above facts and the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 as well as the entire arguments, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1 It is true that Egypt government is harming the unslock group when based on objective state situation, but it is limited to the members of Egypt and active activities by Egypt executives.