The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the Defendant was absent from office without permission due to depression, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “justifiable cause” under Article 89-2 subparag. 1 of the Military Service Act, even if there was a “justifiable cause” under Article 89-2 subparag. 1 of the Military Service Act.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to symptoms of depression at the time of stopping the instant crime.

C. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine provides that “A person who deserts from service or fails to serve in the pertinent field for not less than eight days in total without justifiable grounds shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years.” Here, “justifiable cause” refers to a cause for which a person who deserts from service, such as a disease, cannot be responsible for such a person (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5132, Jun. 26, 2014). In determining whether a deviation from service can be justified due to a disease, etc. in a specific case, the duty of military service is to specify the duty of national defense, which is a constitutional duty, and if such duty of military service is not fulfilled, the dignity and value of all citizens shall not be guaranteed, which is a fundamental duty of citizens to the extent that the duty of military service ought to be performed as part of a disease or mental or physical disability.