A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, while serving as a social service personnel at the office in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-based 2048, was not present at the office on November 2, 2015, and was absent from the service for at least eight (8) days without good cause on the ground that the Defendant did not work at the office on the mobile site as described in the list of crimes in attached Form 2, from that time to December 29, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. A written statement of accuser C;

1. Investigation report (investigation into D's statements working at the mobile office);

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the charge of accusation, each daily service status register, investigation report of escape from service, inspection of the register of automobile registration, vehicle operation details, opinion letter, issuance certificate of medical records, issuance of a copy of medical records, and the extra medical records

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant was a social service personnel, who was unable to perform normal service due to severe depression at the time of leaving the military service, and there was justifiable reason to leave the military service in this case.

2. The term “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act means, in principle, the existence of an abstract duty of military service and the recognition of the performance thereof. However, the reason why it is possible to justify the nonperformance of the duty of military service specified by the decision of the head of the Military Affairs Administration, etc., i.e., the reason why the nonperformance of the duty of military service cannot be attributable to the person who performed the duty of military service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5132, Jun. 26, 2014). According to the record, the Defendant applied to the department of the department of mental health of the government-specific mother hospital at the University of Tolian University (hereinafter referred to as “Matern Hospital”) on June 10, 2015, and was subject to drug treatment at the same hospital on the same symptoms on December 3 and 29, 2015.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the defendant symptoms on June 10, 2015.