[병역법위반][미간행]
Defendant 1 and 1
Admonishment decoration
Attorney Kim Jae-re et al.
Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of five million won and by a fine of five million won, respectively.
When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.
However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive against Defendant 1.
To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.
Defendant 1 is an employer as the representative director of Defendant 2, a designated entity to which expert research personnel are assigned, and Defendant 2 is a corporation established for the purpose of software development, etc. In order to be transferred to expert research personnel upon designation, Defendant 1 must file an application to be transferred to the Military Manpower Administration for a person engaged in the pertinent business, and expert research personnel are engaged in the designated business field, although they are required to be transferred
1. Defendant 1
A. On February 6, 2006, Nonindicted Party 1, a part of the Defendant’s university, transferred to the Defendant company for convenience of allowing the Defendant to participate in the second test process on or around August 2006 from Nonindicted Party 1, a part of the Defendant’s university, to be in charge of the second test on or around August 2006. In fact, Nonindicted Party 1 did not conduct research in the field of civil engineering structure at the technical research institute affiliated with the Defendant company on or around March 6, 2006, and did not conduct research in the field of civil engineering structure at the technical research institute affiliated with the Defendant company on or around March 6, 2006, Nonindicted Party 1 conducted research in the field of civil engineering structure at the technical research institute affiliated with the Defendant company. In the future, Nonindicted Party 1 submitted to the director of the competent regional military manpower office a false application to be incorporated into the technical research institute affiliated with the Defendant company on March 24, 2006.
(b)after March 24, 2006 and after July 23, 2007, an administrative notice was given and had it engage in the field concerned of the designated entity at the time of incorporation;
(c)not inform the director of the competent regional military manpower office of the fact that it has not worked in the field concerned at the time of incorporation;
2. Defendant 2 corporation
Defendant 1, an employer of the Defendant Company, committed the crimes of the same kind as 1. in connection with the duties of the Defendant.
1. The defendant 1's partial statement
1. Each testimony of Nonindicted 1 and 2 by the witness
1. Some prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant 1
1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 1
1. An application for transfer and a list of technical research personnel;
Defendant 1 asserted that Nonindicted 1 was in a state of sufficient qualification to be incorporated into the technical research institute annexed to the Defendant Company, and that Defendant 1 submitted to the competent director of the competent regional office of manpower administration for the application for incorporation with respect to Nonindicted 1, which was submitted by Defendant 1 to the head of the competent regional office of manpower administration, was not false, and therefore, there was no unlawful act regarding the incorporation of Nonindicted 1, who is the subject
In light of the above, the "illegal act related to incorporation" in Article 92 (2) of the Military Service Act refers to an act committed by an employer in violation of the duties in relation to a transfer of a person to be transferred to another position, and the duties of the above employer are to confirm whether the person to be transferred to another position has a prescribed qualification under the Act, and whether the person to be transferred to another position has an intent and ability to work in the field concerned to the business of the management of the employer, and to recommend or apply for the qualified person as a technical research personnel to the competent director of the regional military manpower office. Therefore, if the person to be transferred to another position is aware of the fact that he did not have a qualification as a technical research personnel or that the person to be transferred to another position has no intent or ability to work normally at the designated business entity in the management of
In the instant case, according to the evidence adopted earlier, Defendant 1 prepared a false application for transfer to the effect that Nonindicted 1 had the ability and intention to work normally when he is selected as expert research personnel, upon the request of Nonindicted 1, who was well aware that Nonindicted 1 had no intention to work as a member of the Defendant Company even if he was transferred to the Defendant Company as a member of the expert research personnel, he would select him as a member of the expert research personnel and would cause him to settle the duty of military service. Accordingly, according to these facts, Defendant 1’s assertion that Nonindicted 1 did not perform any unlawful act as prescribed by the Military Service Act in relation to the transfer to Nonindicted 1 cannot be accepted.
1. Article applicable to criminal facts;
Defendants: Articles 92(2), 36 (Concurrent Punishment), 84(2), 40 (Selection of Fines), 92(1), and 39(3) (Penalty) of the Military Service Act
Defendant Company: Article 96 of the Military Service Act
1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);
Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code
1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);
Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act
1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 1);
Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act
1. Ad hoc payment order:
Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Justices Kim Jong-Gyeong