2008. Therefore, the NHRCK suggested including these cases in the report. However, the recommendation was not reflected in the report. Important case relating to racial discrimination In its review of the thirteenth and fourteenth reports, the Committee commented that the Republic of Korea had not imposed criminal penalties on racial discrimination. Related to such racial discrimination, the Bucheon branch of the Incheon District Court convicted a South Korean for making racially discriminatory remarks against a foreigner in a bus in 2009. The Court held that the foreigner felt publicly insulted by racist remarks. Thus, the NHRCK recommended including the case in the report. However, the recommendation was not reflected in the report. Sections relevant to the present condition, regulations, and policies Paragraph 8 of the report discussed the constant decrease in the number of irregular migrants. In this regard, the NHRCK recommended supplementing that one reason for such decrease is due to the Korean government’s strengthened crackdown process and deportation as a result of such process in the report. The NHRCK suggested that this information may provide insight into the current state of irregular migration as well as facilitate constructive discussions with the Committee. However, the recommendation was not reflected in the report. Paragraph 9 of the report presented the fact that the number of Vietnamese who married a Korean citizen was significantly high and that the number of female marriage migrants far exceeds the number of male marriage migrants. The NHRCK explained such trend as a result of international marriage, arranged by international marriage agencies or local governments that fund the international marriage in rural areas with the majority of applicants being male. The NHRCK suggested including this information in the report. However, the recommendation was not reflected in the report. With regard to paragraph 15 of the report, the majority of 36 recognized refugees, listed in 2008, were recognized by the judicial judgment on the applicant’s filing of administrative lawsuit, challenging the denial of refugee status rendered by the Ministry of Justice. Moreover, the sharp increase in the number of recognized refugees by the Ministry of 4