(a) The time when the crime of escaping military service as prescribed in Article 30 of the Military Criminal Act is established; and

(b) In cases where a person deprived of military service inflicts bodily injury on other persons on September 23, 1975, and where the period of maturity has expired with the final and conclusive judgment of October 4, 1974, due to the crime of intrusion upon residence, obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to property, etc., the mutual relation between such crimes and the applicable provisions of Acts;

1. The offense of secession from military service under Article 30 of the Military Criminal Act is established immediately if a military unit or office is separated from military service for the purpose of escaping from military service. Thus, if a military service is not returned to the military for the purpose of evading military service after the period of leave permission expires, a crime of secession from military service is established and the unlawful state of secession from military service continues only thereafter.

2. In a case where a person exempt from military service inflicts bodily injury on 23:40 on September 10, 1975 and has been sentenced to a final and conclusive judgment of 10th October 4, 1974, and the crime of escaping from military service and the crime of obtaining the final and conclusive judgment above constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since the crime of escaping from military service constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence should be imposed for the crime of escaping from military service under Article 39(1) of the same Act, and since it is obvious that the fact of inflicting bodily injury is after the final and conclusive judgment, a separate sentence shall be imposed for repeated crimes under Article 35 of the same Act.

Defendant

Long-term clothes

The Army, High Military Court Decision 75 High Military Branch Decision 1000 delivered on March 12, 1976

The appeal is dismissed.

The 80-day detention days after filing an appeal shall be included in the original sentence for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

1. The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined as follows.

(1) Since the original judgment was rendered from June 18, 1974 to 28 and did not return to the designated unit on the same date and time for the purpose of evading military service, it recognized the fact of escaping from units for about one year and four months until the time when the military unit is arrested on September 10, 1975, and the fact of injuring Non-indicted 23:40 on September 23, 1975, and it was determined by the Busan District Court on October 4, 1974 that the defendant was sentenced for about ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the theft of residence, obstruction of performance of official duties, or destruction of property and became final and conclusive, and that the crime of escaping military service under Article 30 of the Military Criminal Act was established without prison labor for the purpose of escaping military service, and therefore, it should be determined that the crime of escaping military service and the crime of escaping military service should be established separately from that of the above final judgment after the completion of the period of leave, and therefore, it should be determined that the crime of escaping from military service and the above final judgment is unlawful.

(2) In the original judgment, the court below stated that each punishment should be imposed separately for the crimes of evading military duty and inflicting bodily injury in accordance with Article 39 of the Criminal Act, and the above facts of injury do not coincide with the crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, as in wartime, and therefore, it does not constitute a concurrent relation with the crimes of Article 39 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, in this point, the original judgment does not dismiss the defects in applying the Act, but the purport of the judgment is to the effect that the military duty evasion and injury should be separately determined. Therefore, it cannot be said that such illegality affected the judgment, and therefore, the appeal by the counsel who discussed the original judgment with a different purport is without merit.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal and the defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined as follows.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defendant is that the original judgment misleads the facts against the rules of evidence based on false evidence and misleads the facts, and the summary of the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel is only the confession of the defendant, so the court below is erroneous in finding the facts of the judgment in the original judgment without using evidence. If the records are recorded, the facts of the judgment in the original judgment can be justified in light of the legitimate evidence relationship cited in the judgment, and there is no other reason that the rules of evidence are legitimate, or there is no other reason that there is any error in the rules of evidence or other illegal acts, and it is obvious that the other simple mistake and unfair sentencing cannot be the grounds of appeal by the provisions of Articles 432 and 433 of the Military Court Act. Accordingly, the appeal by the defendant is nothing more than the confession of the defendant in the judgment of the military court and the court below does not have any reason that the contents of the judgment in the defendant's appeal are sufficient as evidence to support the defendant's written confirmation that the defendant's attorney should return to the military register.

3. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 436 and 437 of the Military Court Act. 80 days of detention days after the filing of the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Hong Man-hee (Presiding Justice)