So I got curious about why a chronic illness like asthma results in Grade 4 (Social Service) while ACL injuries can sometimes receive Grade 5 under Korea's military classification system.
Here is a quick look at how the military physical grading system works and what I found (another essay by Moon please remember I'm just a booksmart person not Korean๐ฅน)
First, a quick overview of the grades:
Grades 1โ3: Active Duty (field/combat units)
Grade 4: Supplemental Service (desk/public service roles)
Grade 5: Wartime Labor Service (exempt from peace-time service)
Grade 6:Full Exemption
The key detail is that classification isn't based on a simple diagnosis name, but on documented clinical severity and functional impact:
Asthma: Having asthma alone doesn't automatically qualify someone for Grade 5.
The criteria evaluate long-term treatment history, recurrent exacerbations, and clinical course. Well-managed or less severe cases are typically assessed as Grade 4, leading to Social Service rather than active duty or full exemption.
Okay so let's talk about the exemption we know
ACL & Knee Instability:An ACL tear is not an automatic Grade 5 either. Knee instability is evaluated on a spectrum (Grades 3โ5) using objective MRI findings, functional instability, and postoperative status.
Severe structural instability requiring surgery can reach Grade 5 which appears consistent with the publicly reported details of S.Coups' injury and reconstruction.
In short: the system evaluates long-term functional impairment, not just the medical diagnosis itself.
Sources: ROK Military Manpower Administration (๋ณ๋ฌด์ฒญ) & Rules on Physical Examination for Military Service (๋ณ์ญํ์ ์ ์ฒด๊ฒ์ฌ ๋ฑ ๊ฒ์ฌ๊ท์น).
i remember i needed to make the whole essay when hs was getting hate for using the certain word and accused he stole the word, or when i wrote a thousand words about how komca works bc wz was dragged bc of that ai slander, or when i made the damn long thread when svt accused plagiarism allegation bc of the photo concept using the fire, pink hair, and the same shirt as another group.
and when i realized that the pattern is still the same now, that carats always try to educate some entities with knowledge and how things work, i'm kind of proud to be part of this fandom, yet so sad at the same time. because WHY does this become our responsibility to ALWAYS educate people? if we can do the research by ourselves, i assume, they could do the same too (before attacking others). but WHYYYYY ๐ญ
Do you all remember how I was saying I won't talk about it anymore? Yeah, so I lied.
Cause I actually looked up real court cases and also wanted to talk about that Chinese producer's analysis properly.
So here is my defense case hjhjhj
The MIDI & Music Theory Breakdown
The DAW pitch overlay comparing the choruses of "Micheo Micheo" and "HANDO-CHOGUA" does show some shared scale-degree patterns which is completely standard for the genre.
BUT the tracks are literally in different keys C\#m vs Dm,
different tempos (75 vs 70 BPM),
and have entirely different chord progressions:
Micheo Micheo:C\#m--F\#m--B--E--G\#
HANDO-CHOGUA:Dm--C--F--Gm--A
Both tracks lean into classic trot/semi-trot tropes built on the Yonanuki pentatonic scale a 5-note scale (no 4th or 7th degrees) that basically rules Korean trot and Japanese enka.
Ethnomusicologist Christine Yano actually found that 27 out of 28 enka melodies she analyzed used this exact scale.
When two songs share a sub-genre, a fast tempo, and a tiny pool of just 5 notes, having some melodic overlap isn't plagiarism itโs basic math.
But isn't overlap still a lot though?
Here's the thing: courts don't just calculate a "raw overlap percentage" to decide copyright infringement. That's not how music law works. Three major US court rulings make this super clear:
Gray v. Hudson (9th Cir. 2022) โ Katy Perryโs "Dark Horse" case: The court found that even though the disputed repeat pattern shared minor scale notes and a similar rhythm, basic minor scales and common chord progressions belong to the public domain. Sharing them isn't infringement.
Structured Asset Sales v. Sheeran (2d Cir. 2024) โ Ed Sheeranโs "Thinking Out Loud" case: The court used a "numerosity" test since that specific 4-chord progression had already appeared in at least 8 older songs, no single artist could claim ownership over it. Sheeran won.
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin (9th Cir. 2020) โ The "Stairway to Heaven" case:Even with five separate overlapping musical elements, the jury ruled NO infringement because those elements were just standard, unoriginal musical building blocks, not a unique original creation.
Korean Precedent: Johnny Only v. Pinkfong Co. (Korean Supreme Court, Aug 2025) โ the court dismissed a plagiarism claim over "Baby Shark," ruling that basing a song on a pre-existing/public-domain folk melody doesn't grant exclusive ownership over that shared source material, and found no substantial similarity between the two derivative versions.
The Takeaway
The pattern across all these cases is simple: courts look for specific creative expression, not just shared building blocks. A shared scale, standard genre tropes, and common chord structures belong to everyone.
The exact same logic applies to pentatonic trot overlap in different keys. You can't copyright a 100-year-old 5-note scale.
Sources for anyone who actually wants to read:
1. Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022) โ https://t.co/S5s6eqmAUE
2. Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024)
3. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) โ https://t.co/tM7cJ6w7Lj
4. Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment Law Blog, "The Fine Line Between Inspiration and Infringement" (Mar 2025)
5. Christine Yano, *Tears of Longing: Nostalgia and the Nation in Japanese Popular Song* (Harvard University Asia Center, 2002)
6. Wood Law Offices, "Music Copyright: Covers, Samples & Infringement
7. ํ๊ตญ์ผ๋ณด (Hankook Ilbo), "์์ด๊ฐ์กฑ ์ ์๊ถ ์์ก ๋๋ฒ์ ์ต์ข ์น์, ํํฌํ '๋ฒ ์ด๋น ์คํฌ' ํ์ ์๋" โ https://t.co/NVG1jQZyPV