Therefore, even if the defendant was served with the call notice on June 21, 2013, which was 13 days prior to the call notice, the service is lawful. Thus, the defendant's act of not responding to the call constitutes "the case where the person who received the call notice fails to respond to the call without any justifiable reason" under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

However, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that “the Defendant did not receive the call notice of this case prior to June 21, 2013, or the Defendant did not constitute a person subject to separate call under Article 52 subparag. 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act.” Therefore, pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, the notice of call of this case should be served on the Defendant 30 days prior to the call of the case. Since it is inappropriate that the notice of call of this case was served on the Defendant on June 21, 2013, which was 13 days prior to the call of the call of this case, the Defendant’s non-compliance with the call does not constitute “where the person who received the call notice fails to comply with the call without justifiable grounds,” as prescribed in

First of all, even according to the prosecutor's argument on the grounds of appeal, since the Military Manpower Administration could have contacted the defendant through the defendant's wife, it cannot be viewed as a missing person.

Next, even if the defendant is considered to be a missing person as a person subject to separate call-up, the call-up of this case.