Main Issues
Even if the postponement of enlistment was not determined, the case constituting a legitimate cause for not being enlisted in active duty service.
Summary of Judgment
In the event that a doctor who receives the certificate of enlistment in the active duty service and submits a report of enlistment impossibility, accompanied by a doctor's diagnosis that requires approximately one week stability, it shall be a justifiable reason for not enlistment on the prescribed date, even if he was not subject to a prior decision by the military affairs authorities to postpone enlistment. It shall be a case that falls
[Reference Provisions]
Article 104(1) of the Military Service Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Government support of the first instance court, Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 67No100 delivered on April 4, 1967
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office and Kim Tae-won's Grounds for Appeal are examined.
According to the medical certificate prepared by the court below with respect to the defendant on January 4, 1966, which was adopted as evidence by the court below, the defendant's nuclear and inside Korea need to be kept stability from January 4, 1966 to approximately one week. The defendant's failure to enlist in the active duty service even with the certificate of enlistment on January 5, 1966 to enter active duty service in the active duty service was the same time as above, and the certificate of diagnosis was submitted on January 5, 1966 to the Dongcheon-gun's moving site. Such circumstance can be seen as a justifiable reason for the defendant's failure to enlist in the prescribed date under Article 104 (1) of the Military Service Act. It is difficult to conclude that the defendant is not a justifiable reason under the above Article of the Military Service Act because he did not undergo a decision to postpone enlistment from the military service authority. The judgment below with the same opinion is just and there is no error in the application of Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.
The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)