The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for up to eight months) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. In Germany, the Defendant, who was born from Germany to 5 years of age, returned to Korea, and returned to Germany with his parents while attending the third grade of elementary school, has resided in Germany from that time to that time while moving to Germany.

The Defendant, while having taken a national notice to become an German attorney-at-law, applied for extension of the period of permission to travel abroad at maturity, but refused the extension on the ground that it exceeded 26 years of age, which led to the instant crime by refusing to return to Korea in order to complete the oral interview test.

In light of the background of the Defendant’s growth or crime, it is not deemed that the Defendant left Korea for the purpose of evading military service from the beginning and did not return to Korea.

In addition, the defendant acquired German nationality in April 2014, and even though he did not bear the duty of military service as a national of the Republic of Korea, he voluntarily entered the country around October 2017 and faithfully left the investigation and trial procedures.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant has the following disadvantageous circumstances.

Although the defendant, as a person liable for military service, has recognized that the period of overseas travel expires, he continued to stay in Germany without returning to Korea, and eventually failed to perform his duty of military service.

The reason why the Military Service Act defines such an act as a crime is to ensure the faithful performance of the duty of military service and to prevent the evasion of the duty of military service as a means of staying abroad, and it cannot be readily concluded that the crime of this case is light in comparison with that of evading other duty of military service.

In particular, although the defendant successfully completed the oral interview examination, he will perform his duty of military service.