1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

With respect to the upper half of the upper half of the frame, the defendant's decision is made on 2018.

Details of the disposition

On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was transferred to the two parts of the C Joint Search Team.

The Plaintiff, carried out on September 26, 2016, was involved in an accident where knenee was plicking, plucking, and plicked in the course of being put into a light shot-hof, and the floor was 1.5 meters in depth in each kne-hof of the new path education unit.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff received the preservation treatment at the Fa group’s stage of the instant accident, and on November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed at the National Armed Forces Dong-dong Hospital as “the Baund Maume of the anti-companion in the inner and external side,” etc., and received the diagnosis at the D Hospital on November 28, 2016, on a half-yearly and external half-month in the outer side.

On January 12, 2017, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Armed Forces Dong Hospital for the purpose of the duty investigation, and was discharged from military service on February 8, 2017.

On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, etc. on the basis of having applied for “The Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man (hereinafter “instant wounds”); (b) on April 16, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the instant wounds did not meet all the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded on duty and person responsible

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case was lawful, as the Plaintiff was the Army, during the course of each intervention directly related to the performance of his duties, and thereby the instant difference occurred. Thus, the disposition of this case is improper.

Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State with regard to the part of the upper half of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.