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. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a police officer who was appointed as a police officer on March 31, 1990 and served in the police box at the Mayang Police Station D.

B. On May 29, 2012, at home of 09:00, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed of chronic scarcity infection (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”); (b) on June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for medical care for occupational duties, claiming that “the instant injury and disease were caused to the lower part of the patrol while performing the duty of patrol at least twice a month during the total seven years and two months after the appointment of a police official; and (c) was dispatched to the Marine Corps, regardless of non-number of times at the time of a aquatic accident, in the course of the search and development of the dys and development of the dys by diving together with the EF at the time of the Marine Corps; and (d) filed an application for medical care.”

C. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for approval of medical care for official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant injury and disease were merely shown to be the Plaintiff’s disease, and it cannot be deemed that there was a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s official duty because it was difficult to view that there was a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s disease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, as a police official, has carried out official duties on the water surface while performing patrol as a police official for seven years and two months.

In particular, whenever the plaintiff raises the dysa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa-sa

Even if there is no fact that the Plaintiff suffered from obsive disease during that period, there is a proximate causal relation between the injury branch and the official duties of this case.

Therefore, the instant disposition against it is unlawful.

B. Determination 1: Official duties under the Public Officials Pension Act.