Whether a person subject to an order for enlistment in the recruit service is exempted from the obligation to report its members.

A person who is transferred to the recruit service and is designated as a person subject to the order for the substitute enlistment under the provisions of Article 29 of the Military Service Act shall be a person subject to the order for the substitute enlistment under the proviso of Article 22 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act,

Article 29 of the Military Service Act, Article 3 (4) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, and Article 22 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

A

Prosecutor's Assistance in Seoul District Prosecutor's Office

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 76No12193 delivered on May 11, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's assistance in Seoul District Prosecutor's Office's ground of appeal is examined.

According to the judgment of the first instance court of this case maintained by the court below, the defendant was designated as a person subject to the order for the enlistment in the substitute under Article 29 of the Military Service Act by the competent Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, and thus, the defendant is considered as a person who has no obligation to report the members of the homeland reserve forces under Article 3(4) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act and Article 22(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Such judgment below is just and there is no

The purpose of Article 29 of the Military Service Act and Article 22 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act is that the person subject to the enlistment in the replacement service who is exempted from the obligation to report the members of the Military Manpower Administration and the person subject to the enlistment in the replacement service who is not exempt from such obligation is justifiable in this case. Therefore, in this case, the designation of the person subject to the enlistment in the replacement by the director of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City regional military manpower office is justifiable. The argument that the designation of the person subject to the enlistment in the substitute service is invalid a year. The argument is that the person subject to the order for the enlistment in the substitute under the provisions of Article 29 of the Military Service Act

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed by Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This decision is delivered with the opinions of the participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)