The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The term “an injury during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty)” referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease of military personnel or police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty. Therefore, to be different from the above provision, there should be a proximate causal relationship between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease. However, the causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved by medical and natural science, but it is proved that there is a proximate causal relationship between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease when considering all the circumstances, and it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between education and training or in the performance of duty and in the performance of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

2. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s accident constituted an extreme fear and serious external injury to the extent that the Plaintiff was likely to cause external stress disorder to the Plaintiff, when deeming that the Plaintiff was dissatisfyed by the demonstration team at night, and was forced to satisfyed by the pipe, and that some of the Plaintiff’s club members at the time were to have suffered serious injury to the extent that the Plaintiff could have died.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that: (a) although the trauma stress disorder diagnosis was conducted 15 years after the date of the instant accident, the Plaintiff could not receive appropriate treatment due to the circumstances of the military unit during which the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the police hospital due to the instant accident; (b) the injury after trauma may arise after one year or more; (c) the act of the Plaintiff’s actions following the discharge, i.e., the behavior that the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff to die, based on aggressive tendency; (d) the behavior that the Plaintiff seems to have led to aggressive noise or to defend himself; and (e) the behavior that the Plaintiff expressed strong refusal to commit the act that the Plaintiff intended to do so; and (e) the Plaintiff appears to have suffered serious stress disorder in the process of the instant accident, i.e., e., suppression of alcohol dependence; and (v) stress disorder disorder after the symptoms of the instant accident; and (v) the Plaintiff’s symptoms that were similar to the stress disorder in the process of the instant case; and (v) the Plaintiff appears to have suffered symptoms after the symptoms of the symptoms of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in finding that the defendant's disposition of this case which refused to apply for registration of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State of this case was unlawful, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as argued in the

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Jae-han