1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with visa exemption (B-1) status on October 11, 2013, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on August 6, 2014.

B. On February 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 7, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on December 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As a result of the C Revolution that occurred over the year 2010 and 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that D President D, who had controled B from 1987, resigned from office in only 24 years, and was released from Saudi Arabia. The Plaintiff, as the support officer of D former President, was sent to the Anti-Government Demonstration site on August 26, 2012, and was luxated with other support officers.

Since then, the plaintiff was arrested by the police on suspicion of assaulting the demonstration team, and was detained in the detention room for 4 days, and immediately after the plaintiff was released from the country of nationality by giving a bribe to the additional police.

Since then, the plaintiff was convicted of assaulting the demonstration team to disturb the order and was sentenced to a substitute trial, and a two-year imprisonment was sentenced.

In the event that the plaintiff returned to a country of nationality, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite the possibility of persecution in the above circumstances is unlawful.

B. Determination 1.