1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on May 7, 2014 as non-applicable to the requirement of a person of distinguished service to the State.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2, 1989, the Plaintiff was so-called the Army, and was discharged from military service on June 30, 201, and served under B (hereinafter “B”) during the period of service from July 28, 1995 to June 30, 201.

B. On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “from July 21, 2009 to November 28, 2009, the Plaintiff was arrested in a third country during the performance of special duties and received various advisers and examinations, and caused “incompetence” (hereinafter “incompetence”).

C. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant confirmed on July 21, 2009 that the Plaintiff was arrested by the personnel of the State of National Security on the part of July 3, 2009 during the performance of special duties, and detained for four months under confinement. The Defendant treated the military hospital with symptoms, such as anxiety, influence, concentration, and early distress after returning, etc., and confirmed the records diagnosed by “unclaimed, adaptation disorder, and depression,” but it did not actively undergo treatment for three years after 2009, and caused neither mental problems nor functional disorder, and thus, it does not recognize that there was proximate causal relation with the military and that there was no causal relation with the performance of official duties.” The Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the pertinent person of distinguished services to the State” did not constitute “the pertinent disposition to the State” on the ground that: (a) the applicant and the doctor did not actively receive treatment for three years after 2009, and there was no functional disorder.

2) Each entry, 3, and 4-1, 3-4 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 4 of the ground for recognition, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On December 30, 2004, the Plaintiff entered a third country on December 30, 2004, and was arrested in the third country’s National Security Department on July 21, 2009 and detained until November 28, 2009, and was arrested in the third country’s Department of National Security on July 21, 2009.

The plaintiff on November 2009.