However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

As a result of a physical examination conducted by the chief prosecutor of the second prosecutor of the Seoul Military Manpower Administration located at the bank of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul on September 12, 2016, the Defendant did not undergo a follow-up physical examination on the designated date without justifiable grounds, even though he/she directly received a notice of a follow-up physical examination to the effect that he/she should undergo a follow-up physical examination at the above place from that place until July 13:30, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. The receipt of the notice of a re-physical examination and the reexamination (the defendant and his defense counsel did not undergo a re-examination on the fixed date on November 29, 2017 on the notice of examination for re-military service rendered by the Military Manpower Administration after receipt of the notice of re-physical examination because the defendant stated that he was subject to a re-examination for military service by November 29, 201

Note. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the defendant was subject to postponement of the selection of a person subject to a re-determination for military service and was subject to a re-examination on the first fixed date unless he received a notice of a re-examination for military service determination.

The following facts are revealed. The term “the reexamination for a new draft physical” and “the examination for a new draft physical examination” are strictly different, and there are justifiable grounds for determining that the Defendant’s failure to undergo a new draft physical on the first fixed date without making a serious effort, such as questioning relevant agencies, such as the Military Manpower Administration, even though the term is strictly different.

Therefore, the above argument is not acceptable. Thus, the above argument is not acceptable.).

1. Article 87 (3) of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62 (1)