A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The Defendant’s wife received a written notice of enlistment in active service against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, and sent it to the Defendant through Kakao Stockholm case, thereby having lawfully served the notice of enlistment in active service on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant’s wife sent it to the Defendant.

As such, Article 21 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27620, Nov. 29, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act”) which provides that a person subject to separate enlistment may not be deemed to have committed a violation of the Military Service Act, but may shorten the service period of a written notice of enlistment for the person subject to enlistment, is unlawful, and thus, a notice of enlistment to the head of the Gyeong-in Regional Military Manpower Administration that was not served by 30 days before the date of enlistment is violated in violation of the Constitution. Thus, even if the defendant did not enlist within 3 days after the date of entry, the violation of the Military Service Act is not established even if the defendant was determined by the above disposition and did not enlist within 3 days after the date of entry, and thus, it is unlawful by infringing the Defendant’s submission of a written application for reduction of or exemption from military service due to the difficulty of maintaining his livelihood, even if the Defendant did not enlist in accordance with the above disposition, it does not constitute a violation of the Military Service Act (III.

B. Although the defendant and his defense counsel did not explicitly assert unfair sentencing practices, according to the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by the defendant to this court on June 1, 2017, the period for submitting the appeal and the period for submitting the appeal, the defendant sought an action to the effect that “in consideration of the fact that the sentence of 10-month imprisonment with prison labor, for which the execution of the sentence was suspended since the execution of the sentence was invalidated, is too heavy,” the sentence of 10-month imprisonment sentenced by the court below should be additionally imposed.”