The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception that the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2, page 19 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. “A person with political influence is a person with political influence”.

Chapter 3 Myeon 9 to 14 Happy are as follows:

【2) In light of the fact that there is a need to flexibly interpret “the status as a member of a specific social group” in accordance with subparagraph 2 (Evidence No. 5) of the Guidelines on International Protection prepared by the UN Refugee Agency (UNCLOS) and the background of the establishment of the refugee system, and the UN Convention on International Protection, and the fact that the subject of gambling is not limited to State agencies, the threat that the Plaintiff received may be deemed to be “persecution based on the status as a member of a specific social group or political opinion.”

The argument is asserted.

However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the concept or criteria for recognition of “gambling on the grounds of a particular social group’s membership or political opinion,” as a requirement for recognition of refugee status, are more mitigated, in light of the fact that an offender murders only the Plaintiff’s deceased village that was suffering from a land ownership dispute at the scene of murder and did not kill the Plaintiff, it seems that the Plaintiff was a witness at the scene of murder, and that the Plaintiff was merely a member of the Plaintiff’s family.

Therefore, as asserted by the Plaintiff in this case, it cannot be deemed that damage caused by private disputes or general criminal crimes falls under “persecution based on the status or political opinion as a member of a specific social group,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

(iii)..