Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On June 4, 1970, the Plaintiff entered the Navy and transferred to the Navy from December 31, 1970 to February 7, 1972, and was registered as war veterans on March 29, 200 after the Vietnam War veteran applied for war veterans on March 30, 1973.

On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Article 7(3) of the applicable Act and Article 298 of the Criminal Act) in the Changwon District Court’s child and youth support on September 3, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive, and was released on June 24, 2015.

When the Defendant became aware of the fact as a result of an identification inquiry with the National Police Agency, on February 12, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to exclude the Plaintiff from the application of the aforementioned Act pursuant to Article 3(2)2 of the former Act on Honorable Treatment of War Veterans, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (amended by Act No. 13609, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former War Veterans Act”).

On January 6, 2020, the Plaintiff applied for the re-registration of war veterans to the Defendant, but on July 16, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision on July 16, 2020 that the Plaintiff does not fall under the subject of Article 39(2) of the Act on Honorable Treatment of War Veterans, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (hereinafter “the War Veterans Act”).

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to whether the disposition of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings is legitimate, is unlawful even though not less than 3 years have passed since the execution of punishment was completed, and the plaintiff received a commendation by performing various volunteer activities, etc., although the degree of penance is obvious, the disposition of this case conducted on different premise is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

Article 39 (2) of the War Veterans Act "where it is deemed that the degree of penance is obvious" refers to an indefinite concept and the requirement is within the jurisdiction of administrative agencies to determine the discretion of the war veterans.

Therefore, this paper deals with this.