beta
Text
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.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the judgment, is as follows, is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial completion of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2) and adding a part of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (3). As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is. The part to be filled by the judgment of the court of first instance, which
“In accordance with the Plaintiff’s statement, the Plaintiff did not participate in any other demonstration other than the Plaintiff’s participation in the demonstration two times in 201, and there was no investigation or threat from the police due to the aforementioned two demonstrations, and there was no other threat from the police to the time of departure from Korea in 2016 after being investigated by the police at the location of the sentence in 2014. Thus, it is difficult to deem that there was a possibility of arrest or detention if the Plaintiff returned to the country of nationality.
According to the "the criteria and procedure manual for recognizing refugee status" prepared by the UN Refugee Agency, if it is reasonable for the applicant to express his/her political opinion within the period of time and present his/her opinion as a result of the conflict with the authority, even if the applicant did not express his/her political opinion yet, he/she may be allowed to have his/her fear of being deprived of political opinion on grounds of political opinion, and it is not necessary to prove that the applicant asserts that there is fear that he/she would be stuffing on grounds of political opinion, and even if he/she leaves his/her country of origin, it is not necessary to prove that he/she had known his/her opinion from the government agency before he/she leaves the country of origin.
Even if the plaintiff re-returns to Egypt, it is clear that the plaintiff will conflict with the government authorities.
The plaintiff's statement that can be recognized by the writing of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleading.