(a) The gender of a crime of neglect of preparation for combat, where the commander of a small group renders soldiers to the commander of a small group and drinks during working hours (affirmative);

(b) Crimes of attacking or evading the enemy, where a member of the armed forces carrying with a firearms seeks to escape from North Korea;

A. The fact that a small commander, whose duty is to perform the duty of the duty of the boundary duty of the Southern Limit Line is to place the duty to the appointed commander during the hours of the boundary duty of the small line, constitutes the so-called combat preparation neglect, and the so-called drinking in his appointment constitutes the so-called punishment of combat preparation, and the fact that he provided mental education for the members belonging to the Pyeongtaek Line does not affect the nature of the above crime.

B. Even if the non-party (A) who belongs to the defendant (hereinafter the plaintiff's commander) was in possession of firearms in order to kill and remove the same members, the defendant was aware of the fact that he wanted to North Korea from the date he suffered the total injury by the above non-party to the time he was sent back to the time he was sent back to the court below. However, if the above non-party could not be judged as a mere criminal who caused a firearms accident in the state of the instant immediate interest, he could not be aware that he was in the face of an attack in the course of performing his duties under the Military Criminal Act, so the defendant could not be said to constitute a crime of attacking and evading attack against the enemy who was in possession of the non-party without attacking the non-party.

Military Criminal Act No. 35 subparagraph 1 and Article 35 subparagraph 3

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yong-jin

High Military Court Decision 82 High Military Port No. 99 delivered on May 21, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Army, High School, and Military Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are examined together.

As to Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, since the defendant is the commander of the unit of the unit with which the enemy and the bell are expected to work for the boundary line from January 29, 1982 to 01:00 on the following day, as the defendant had the duty for the boundary line from January 29, 1982 to January 18:00, he was to work for the military commander of the military force, cancer relief, early special rules, mental education, etc., and assigned soldiers directly to each beginning, patrol and supervise the officers, despite the fact that he had the duty to work for the lower court's appointment from 18:00 to 19:15, the defendant neglected to make combat preparations by drinking alcohol in the fact that he was appointed between 18:0,00 and 19:15, this constitutes a crime of combat preparation under Article 35 subparagraph 1 of the Military Criminal Act, and the defendant did not have any legal reasoning as to the denial of the duty for the boundary line, and thus, the court below's decision is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defendant's position.

Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 2, Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the defendant was unable to attack the defendant's 3rd mar of 1982.19: 40 mar, which had been on the 3rd mar of 5th mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar.

Therefore, since the crime of attack evasion and the crime of conspiracy of officers are concurrent crimes, the entire judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the High Military Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)