1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a foreigner of the nationality of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”), entered the Republic of Korea on January 28, 2007 with the status of stay for visit (F-1), and stayed with the permission of change on January 15, 2008 as the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) and left the Republic of Korea on January 26, 2010.

After that, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on December 4, 2010 as the sojourn status of Visit and employment (H-2) and was staying in the Republic of Korea on November 28, 2013 but was staying in the Republic of Korea on December 30, 2013.

B. Meanwhile, on June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a punishment of a fine of KRW 3 million for embezzlement due to criminal facts that “the Plaintiff sold 3,848 boxes entrusted by B from December 18, 201 to January 19, 2012, and embezzled 7,696,000 won at will while being kept in custody for the victim,” and the said judgment was finalized on June 20, 2012, and paid the said fine on November 4, 2013.”

C. On December 29, 2014, the day immediately before the expiration of the period of stay (on December 30, 2014), the Plaintiff applied an extension of the period of stay to the Defendant on December 29, 2014, but the Defendant rendered a disposition ordering the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea by January 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Articles 11(1)3 and 4, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act on the grounds of the above criminal punishment on December 29, 2014, and made a decision denying the Plaintiff’s application for extension of the period of stay.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s disposition of this case is not accurately known as to which Article 46(1)1 through 14 of the Immigration Control Act applies while rendering the disposition of this case. 2) The facts constituting the crime of embezzlement do not fall under Article 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act.