1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 13, 2006, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of U.S. nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as an overseas Korean resident (F-4) sojourn and stayed in Korea.

B. The defendant is next to the plaintiff.

In light of the facts of each crime described in the paragraph, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to prohibition of entry under Article 11(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act; and (b) ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea until May 9, 2015 pursuant to Articles 68(1)1 and 46(1)3 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition for order of departure”).

C. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 on the charge of a violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act that was found to have been punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,000 on the charge of the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (Seoul District Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 187). On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of the following facts: (a) on the charge of fraud that: (b) the Plaintiff, even though receiving from the victim the price for the chromothroids, did not have the intent or ability to supply the same quality meme with the same quality as the chromothr's chromers and acquired the victim with the intention or ability to supply the 135,000,000 won as the price for the oral test; and

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the Seoul Northern District Court 2014 Godan3399. [Ground for Recognition], Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the order for departure of this case is legitimate

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 regarding entry and departure of foreigners alleged in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, it shall be deemed that the Administrative Procedures Act applies in principle, except for a disposition that is difficult to undergo administrative procedures due to its nature or requires unnecessary dispositions or procedures equivalent to administrative procedures. The Defendant did not go through the procedures, such as granting an opportunity to present opinions prior to the order of departure of this case.