However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On November 25, 2013, the Defendant, as a member of the homeland reserve forces, did not undergo the above training without justifiable grounds even though he/she received the notice of convening the homeland reserve forces training under the name of the commander of the Army 8375 unit in the name of the Defendant, to participate in the second supplementary training (30H) carried forward in the 13-year supplementary training for the 13th anniversary of the 13th anniversary of November 25, 2013 at C stores located in the original city, located in the Republic of Korea, from November 25, 2013 to November 28, 2013.

2. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant was a member of the homeland reserve forces, and on November 16, 2013, the Defendant did not undergo the said training without justifiable grounds even though he was delivered the notice of convening the homeland reserve forces training under the name of the commander of the 8375 army to participate in the 13-year supplementary training carried forward at the said World Reserve Forces training site around November 29, 2013, which was conducted at the said C stores on November 16, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of offenses against the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing receipt of a notice of convening education and training;

1. Relevant provisions of the Acts and the choice of punishment for the crimes, and Articles 15 (9) 1 and 6 (1) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, as a new witness, rejected the reserve forces training in accordance with the freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. As such, the Defendant alleged that there exists “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s refusal of the training of homeland reserve forces for the said reason constitutes a case where there exists a justifiable cause as prescribed by the aforementioned Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do7941, Dec. 27, 2007; 2012Do5388, Jul. 12, 2012). The foregoing assertion is

The reason for sentencing.