The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 9(1) of the Nationality Act provides that “A foreigner who was a national of the Republic of Korea may obtain the nationality of the Republic of Korea after obtaining permission for restoring nationality from the Minister of Justice,” and Article 9(2) provides that “the Minister of Justice shall not permit the reinstatement of nationality to a person falling under any of the subparagraphs,” and one of the subparagraphs 2 provides that “a person whose conduct is uncertain.”

Here, “a person whose conduct is not good” means “a person who is not equipped with a character and behavior to the extent that it does not impede accepting an applicant for recovery of nationality as a member of the Republic of Korea again,” and such person should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the sex, age, family, occupation, career, criminal records, etc. of the applicant for recovery of nationality.

In particular, in relation to the criminal records, various circumstances such as the contents of the crime, the degree of punishment, the circumstances at the time of the crime and after the crime, and the period from the date of the crime until the disposition should be comprehensively considered as well as the existence of the crime committed.

2. In full view of the following facts: (a) the recovery of nationality is recognized as having a broad discretion to the Defendant as an area of high-level policy judgment; (b) the crime committed by the Plaintiff is not good in light of the motive and background of the crime; and (c) the degree of disadvantage to the Plaintiff even if there is any disadvantage to the Plaintiff due to the instant disposition that did not permit the recovery of nationality of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the degree of disadvantage to the Plaintiff is larger than the public interest that should be protected through the instant disposition.