1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance and the evidence additionally adopted and examined by this court are justified in the findings of fact in the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except where the plaintiff added or added an additional decision as to the assertion that was added or emphasized by this court, as set forth in paragraph (2), and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. As such, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

The following details shall be added between conduct 15 and 16 in the judgment of the first instance:

D. On May 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) rendered a judgment of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor (Supreme Court Decision 2017No4774 Decided March 30, 2018) and rendered a disposition to select a prisoner for full time reserve on the ground that the said judgment became final and conclusive; (b) revised “No. B No. 1 and 2” as “No. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6” as “No. 1, 2, 5, and 6.”

2. The Plaintiff asserts that even if he did not submit a written consent to the submission of his personal information, he may be subject to the disposition of reduction and exemption from military service pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Regulations on the Reduction and Exemption of Military Service for Persons in Difficulties in Maintenance of Livelihood.

According to the statement of Eul evidence No. 9, Article 22 (1) of the Regulations on the Reduction and Exemption of Military Service by Persons Causing Difficulties in Maintenance and Exemption of Military Service, which is the Military Manpower Administration Directive, provides that "Where it is deemed extremely difficult to maintain a livelihood although it does not fall under this provision, the director of the regional military manpower office may examine, reduce, or exempt military service by case based on objective data.

However, even according to the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 submitted by the plaintiff, it is not enough to recognize that the family's livelihood is extremely difficult due to the plaintiff's enlistment.