beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of a passport to the Defendant as a national of the Republic of Korea who is currently residing in the U.S. Ireland.
B. On August 9, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff was subject to the suspension of indictment on charges of fraud, etc., and refused to issue a passport to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person whose indictment was suspended by committing an offense corresponding to a punishment for a prolonged term of at least three years under Article 12(1)1 of the former Passport Act (amended by Act No. 14606, Mar. 21, 2017)” (hereinafter “instant provision”) and constitutes “a person whose indictment was suspended due to an escape abroad.”
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) If the issuance of a passport was refused despite the absence of conviction in a criminal trial pursuant to the instant provision, such as the presumption of innocence, this goes against the principle of presumption of innocence under the Constitution, and the provision that “a person commits an offense and escape abroad” is unclear and thus, violates the principle of clarity under the Constitution. Therefore, the instant provision violates the Constitution and the instant disposition based on the instant provision is also unlawful. (ii) The Plaintiff was entrusted with a discretionary sale to B, but the relationship with B was collectively organized by compensating losses due to retirement allowances, etc., considering that he was entrusted with a discretionary sale to B; (iii) there was no knowledge of the fact that he was paid KRW 15,00,000, and (b) there was no withdrawal of money from the account; but it cannot be deemed that he was paid to the company after receipt, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have induced the lessor to commit a crime corresponding to imprisonment for a maximum period of three years or more. (b) At the time of criminal proceedings, the Plaintiff did not know at the economic situation of Korea and the securities market conditions in the United States.