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

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 17, 2017, the Defendant, as a person subject to military education for social service personnel, did not comply with the call even though he/she directly received a notice of call for military education under the name of the head of the Incheon Military Service Branch, who received military education at the Army Training Center located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and on June 22, 2017, from the date of call without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statements made by witnesses D in the fifth public trial records;

1. Information received in the form of a written notice or written notice for convening military education for those who have served on active duty as a social service personnel;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Article 88 (1) 3 of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., sentencing in consideration of the following factors)

1. On June 26, 2017, the date on which the enlistment period expires, the Defendant was unable to take remedial measures for returning home at the training center even though he/she was able to undergo delayed enlistment after arrival in the training lawsuit and being able to undergo delayed enlistment. As such, justifiable grounds exist for failure to enlist.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are recognized.

A. On June 26, 2017, the day when the enlistment period expires, the Defendant called to the Military Manpower Administration on June 26, 2017, and asked the Military Manpower Administration for whether it is possible to enlist the next day, but was impossible to do so, so, the Defendant was provided a guidance that he should enlist up to 11:0

B. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant calls to the Military Manpower Administration and calls to the Military Manpower Administration for an injury diagnosis and calls to the training center.

However, there is no injury diagnosis submitted to the Military Manpower Administration after June 27, 2017.

(c)

The Defendant called again to the Military Manpower Administration on June 27, 2017 and failed to enlist in the military training lawsuit on June 26, 2017.

The argument was asserted.

(d)

However, there was no contact with the Military Manpower Administration on June 26, 2017 that the defendant arrived at the training center.

3. Determination;