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

The Defendant is a person eligible to call public interest service personnel.

On February 21, 2012, the Defendant received a notice of call-up to public duty personnel service who directly respond to the call-up of the Army Training Center by March 29, 2012 from a public official in charge within the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office, which is located in the Manaro 43-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with the convocation within three days from the convocation date without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the date of call-up, adjustment and notification of the date of call-up, a written responsible and receipt notice;

1. Article 88(1)2 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 11849, Jun. 4, 2013) on criminal facts

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the same kind of fine) (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the same kind of fine has committed the crime

In light of all circumstances, such as the background, purpose, means, the intent of the actor, etc., which were acknowledged by the various evidences examined by the court, even if there were circumstances that the Defendant’s household condition was difficult at the time of committing the instant crime, it is difficult to view that there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act solely due to such circumstance.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.