The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to whether the scope of delegation by the parent law deviates (ground of appeal No. 1), Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc.”) provides that “military persons or police fire-fighting officials who died of duty or during education and training (including persons who died of disease) directly related to national defense, national security, or the protection of people’s lives and property,” and Article 4(2) of the Act provides that “the specific criteria and scope of persons of distinguished service to the State, such as soldiers or police officers killed or wounded on duty, shall be determined by Presidential Decree, based on the following factors: “the scope of performance of duties or education and training, national defense and security, or the protection of people’s lives and property,” “the extent of the performance of duties

According to delegation, Article 3 [Attachment 1] subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of this case”) recognizes a person who died of an accident, disaster, etc. that directly caused the national security or the protection of people’s lives and property as a person of distinguished services to the State.

In light of the language, purport, amendment circumstance, etc. of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, the provision to the effect that the performance of duties or education and training meets the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State is consistent with the purport of delegation of the Act as a mother.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46034, Aug. 30, 2016). Therefore, the enforcement decree of this case is the same.