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

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

Punishment of the crime

Where a person without military service, who has obtained permission to travel abroad, is unable to return to the Republic of Korea within the permitted period, the Defendant, despite obtaining permission to travel abroad from January 6, 1996 to December 31, 2003, did not return to the Republic of Korea within the said period without justifiable grounds, even though he obtained permission to extend the period of travel or obtain permission to travel abroad no later than 15 days before the expiration of the permitted period.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on individual immigration status, including inquiries on military register, reports on permission for extension of overseas travel, certification of immigration status;

1. Articles 94 and 70(3) of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 9754 of Jun. 9, 2009) on criminal facts

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., favorable circumstances, etc., considered as the reason for sentencing) was that the Defendant, as a person of military service, continued to stay in the U.S. without any justifiable reason despite the expiration of the period of permission to travel abroad, and thereby failed to perform his duty of military service. Thus, the nature of the offense is not less complicated

However, the defendant is guilty of a crime, and he does not have a criminal record in Korea.

From around 1992, the Defendant, a high school student, continued his studies in the United States, and currently acquired the U.S. nationality.

In addition, the sentencing conditions specified in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition, in consideration of all the circumstances.

Judgment on the Defense Counsel's argument

1. The defense counsel's assertion that the statute of limitations for the public prosecution of this case has expired since January 1, 2004 when the period of overseas travel permission was over, or since January 1, 201 when the defendant was transferred to the second citizen's station, and the defendant did not stay abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment. Thus, the charge of this case argues that the statute of limitations expired.

2. Determination

A. The former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 9754, Jun. 9, 2009).