A. Some of the days when the defendant who is erroneous in fact did not work at work applied for sick leave, and does not leave service without justifiable grounds.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, the defendant had an intentional intent as to the escape of service, considering the following facts: (i) the defendant had already been punished by the act of leaving office as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time of absence as stated in the judgment of the court; (ii) the defendant did not contact the service place in advance to seek permission or understanding on the process and result of the occurrence of absence; and (iii) there was no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant applied for sick leave through the Internet; (iv) the defendant was using the statutory leave and sick days after September 5, 2017; (iii) the defendant did not intentionally receive the phone from the service place; and (iv) on October 13, 2017, the employee in charge of the service place did not return to the defendant's residence after finding the defendant's residence.

Recognizing that there was a legitimate reason for the escape from the above service.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Even if the Defendant’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing considers the circumstances favorable on the grounds of appeal, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit.