All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) received a notice of enlistment prior to the misapprehension of legal principles and enlisted in active duty service eight times, but was returned to the military service after the examination results at each time. The Defendant asked the Military Manpower Administration on January 17, 2019 whether he could serve without returning to the country when he was enlisted in the military service, but did not have received any particular answer, and did not enlist in the military service as a matter of course. The Defendant did not appear to have been able to return to the country. The lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that there was a justifiable reason for not enlistment as above, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment)

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s enlistment in the Army as the training center for the 28th Army on December 19, 2018 can be acknowledged as not being enlisted until three days from the date of enlistment, even though the Seoul Military Manpower Office’s notice of enlistment in active duty service was duly issued under the name of the Seoul Military Manpower Office.

Even in cases where the imposition of the duty of military service and the specific disposition of military service are not considered in the process of military service, if the specific and individual circumstance of a person who is liable for military service not enlisted in the military prevents him from being in the course of performing the duty of military service, it shall be deemed that such specific and individual circumstance constitutes “justifiable cause

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018). In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the Health Team, the lower court, and the lower court in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant continued to have been issued a third grade or normal judgment through a follow-up physical examination conducted by the Military Manpower Administration after he/she was returned to the Republic of Korea for the reason that he/she needs to observe psychotropic spirit or internal progress, and on November 1, 2016.