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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On March 31, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Establishment of Local Reserve Forces in the Southern Branch of the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 22, 2016.

[Criminal facts] The defendant is a member of the local reserve force

1. On November 13, 2015, the Defendant received a muster notice under the name of the commander of 8539-2 of the Army, stating that “to participate in the second supplementary training for the first time that would be implemented on November 26, 2015,” at the Defendant’s residence located in the Gunnamdo, the Defendant did not undergo the training of the reserve forces scheduled as above without justifiable grounds.

2. On February 26, 2016, at around 15:55, the Defendant received a muster notice under the name of the commander of the Army 8539-2 unit under the name of the 8539-2 unit of the Army, stating that “to participate in the second supplementary training that will be implemented on March 9, 2016” at the Defendant’s dwelling located in Gun, Namdo, Namdo, the Defendant did not undergo the said scheduled reserve forces training without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Request for accusation against a person who violates the Act on the Establishment of Local Reserve Forces for 16 years (16-3), notification of a crime violating the Act on the Establishment of Local Reserve Forces for 16 years, confirmation of the crime

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: A letter of reply to inquiries, such as criminal history, investigation report (to be bound with the details of the latest rulings), text 1 of the judgment in Gwangju District Court Decision 2015 Madan589 (Seoul District Court Decision 589), one copy of the case summary information inquiry, one copy of the number of individuals and one copy of the acceptance status, and other significant facts in this court [the defendant and his defense counsel] because the defendant did not receive a muster notice directly, they did not know the fact that training as described in the facts

The argument is asserted.

However, the witness D who is the cause of delivery directly delivered to the defendant is aware of the defendant's face even in the ordinary place, and directly served the defendant with a muster notice and received the defendant's signature on his image.

objective, such as the receipt of a muster notice.