A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[2012 Highest 3063] The defendant is a member of the homeland reserve forces.

On September 13, 2012, the Defendant received a training call notice from the Defendant’s office of Gangnam-gu Seoul Company to undergo the 4th carried-over supplementary training conducted at the training site of the Gangseo-dong Winter Reserve Forces in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu from September 24, 2012 to September 27, 2012, and did not undergo the said training without justifiable grounds.

[2013No. 33] The Defendant was the homeland reserve forces, and the Defendant did not attend each of the above training programs without justifiable grounds even after receiving the notice of a call-up for training conducted on November 6, 2012, the second carried-over training conducted on November 6, 2012 (201), and the second carried-over training conducted on November 9, 2012 (201) from the home of the Defendant, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment building 167 dong 2103, and the second carried-over training conducted on November 19, 2012, and the second carried-over training conducted on November 9, 2012.

The defendant, as a member of the homeland, did not receive training without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

[2012 Highest 3063]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation (2013 high-class 33);

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Article 15 (9) 1 and Article 6 (1) of the Establishment of homeland reserve forces Act, the choice of applicable criminal facts and punishment, and the choice of imprisonment with labor;

2. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

3. The circumstances alleged by the Defendant do not constitute justifiable grounds, in light of the following: (a) the determination of the Defendant’s assertion on Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (such as the fact that the Defendant is against the Defendant, and there is no history of punishment heavier than the fine) and the local business trip to the effect that the Defendant was unable to undergo the above training due to his/her failure to undergo the training; (b) the Defendant’s completion of the training, such as the postponement of training; and (c) the process of the training, and the circumstances leading to the failure to undergo the instant training, etc.,