If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

1. From March 25, 2013 to March 27, 2013, the Defendant rejected training for 24 hours by evading training for 24 hours without justifiable grounds, even though he/she received a muster notice at the second supplementary training site in the Dong-si B apartment 403 705 dong-si on March 4, 2013, which was conducted at the training site in the Hanju-si, the second supplementary training site in the Hanju-si.

2. On March 28, 2013, the Defendant avoided 6 hours training without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant received a notice of convening training at around 19:00 on March 4, 2013, in the second supplementary training for the year following the first half of the year, which was conducted at the training site for the counter-fluoral reserve forces located in the Geidong-si, one of which was located in the Republic of Korea.

3. On March 29, 2013, the Defendant avoided 6-hour training without justifiable grounds while receiving a notice of convening training at the second supplementary training site for the second half-year radius, which was conducted at the training site for the counter-fluoral reserve forces located in 09:00 Won-si, the Defendant, at around 19:00 on March 4, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A certificate of each commander or each notification sender;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on each receipt and each homeland reserve forces organized card;

1. Relevant Article 15 (9) 1 and Article 6 (1) of the Establishment of homeland reserve forces Act, in relation to the facts constituting an offense, and the selection of punishment therefor;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was asserted to the effect that there exists “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, but the Defendant’s refusal of the training of the homeland reserve forces according to a religious conscience constitutes a case where justifiable cause under the aforementioned Act exists.