1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasons why the court should explain this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part which is dismissal or addition, which is the second nineth decision of the court of first instance, is the "Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 10984, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply)".

The term "this Court" in the 11th sentence of the first instance court and the 13th sentence of the said court shall be read as "the first instance court".

The "Public Officials Pension Act" in the 13th 10th 10th 13th son's decision of the first instance court is advanced as "Gu Public Officials Pension Act".

In addition, “the net” shall be added to “from August 8, 2013 to February 2014” following the 16th decision of the first instance court.

The following shall be added to the end of the 16th decision of the first instance court:

The Defendant asserts that “the net is suffering from depression due to the side effects of drugs or mental changes due to the adverse effects of drugs or health depression after changing the medicine in the process of receiving a high-tension treatment, which is an existing disease.” The statement of evidence No. 8-2 cannot be deemed that the deceased changed the medicine in the process of receiving a high-tension treatment, which is an existing disease, and the outbreak of depression due to mental changes due to side effects or health depression. On the other hand, according to the result of the court’s entrustment of the medical record appraisal on the Samsung Seoul Hospital Head, the term “risk and unstable symptoms” is also the symptoms of “the depression accompanied by the unexplosion.” As such, it is difficult to view that there was a health concern and unstable symptoms on October 2013 by the deceased, and that there was a concern about the health of the deceased and the symptoms of the health of the deceased are already suffering from the depression. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is not correct.”