A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 27, 2018, the Defendant directly received a written notice of enlistment under the name of the director of the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office to the effect that he is to be enlisted in active duty service, and that he is to be enlisted in the Army Training Center on December 17, 2018 at the residence of the Defendant of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Building B and C, Seoul, but failed to enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The written accusation (including attached documents) (including the defendant and his defense counsel) asserts that there exists a justifiable reason to refuse to enlist because the defendant notified the Military Manpower Administration of the situation that the person was living together by telephone, and waits for re-verification. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant asked the Military Manpower Administration on December 14, 2018 whether to postpone enlistment by taking a bridge to the Military Manpower Administration on the phone, but the defendant cannot delay the illness due to all the number of days for which the date of enlistment as prescribed by the Military Service Act can be postponed, and the defendant cannot apply for a reexamination after the completion of the period of the draft physical examination. Thus, the fact that he received a notice that he would undergo the draft physical after the enlistment is confirmed can only be acknowledged. Although the defendant had been examined after having been discharged from the military service on September 2018, it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason to recognize that the enlistment was postponed at once for re-verification. The above argument does not apply to statutes.

1. Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (including a circumstance to be considered in light of circumstances, the first offender, and the fact that the duty to perform in the future should be performed);