On November 18, 2011, the defendant was sentenced by the Jeju District Court to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Military Service Act in August 8, 201 and the above judgment was finalized on the 26th of the same month, and is currently in the grace period.

On April 4, 2011, the Defendant is a person called up as public interest service personnel to D in the third floor in Jeju-si, and public interest service personnel shall not desert from her department for at least eight days in total without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, during December 26, 2011, the Defendant, for the period from January 1, 201, for the period from January 11, 2012 to January 13, 201, for three days from January 11, 2012, for January 17, 2012, for the period from February 1, 2012, for two days from May 3, 201 to April 4, 201, was absent from service without justifiable grounds for a total of eight days or more.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A written investigation of the escape from service, a daily service status register, and a written accusation;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment of written judgments);

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 89-2 subparag. 1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts, has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for not less than eight days as a public duty personnel for a violation of the Military Service Act, who has deserted from his service without any justifiable reason, and was also relieved of service for not less than eight days thereafter.

Since the defendant should bear strict responsibility for the failure to fulfill his duty of national defense, the defendant cannot be sentenced to punishment.

However, the decision is delivered in consideration of the fact that the suspension of execution is invalidated by this decision, the fact that the defendant was the most responsible for the livelihood of his family as the best on behalf of the defendant back, and the reasons for the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case.