The purpose of the latter part of Article 3 (4) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act

The latter part of Article 3 (4) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act only provides for the duty to report when the military register matters are actually changed, but does not purport of the provision for the duty to make a corrective application to the members of the homeland reserve forces who discovered the parts mistakenly entered therein

Article 3 (4) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 84No985 delivered on April 12, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below's decision should be interpreted only to define the duty to report when there is a change in the military register matters, but also to interpret the duty to apply for correction to the members of the homeland reserve forces who found that there was a wrong error in the contents of the military register. Thus, even if the defendant discovered that the notice of the reserve forces received around January 8, 1981, which was organized in the homeland reserve forces, was mistakenly stated on April 8, 1950, the defendant's actual date of birth, it cannot be deemed that the duty to report under the above law was not imposed even if the defendant knew that the date of birth was mistakenly stated in the notification of the reserve forces, and even if the defendant did not apply for correction, it can be recognized that the defendant did not apply for correction even if he knew that the date of birth was mistakenly stated in the notification of the reserve forces, the term "act of fraud" under Article 82 (1) of the former Military Service Act (Act No. 3266) requires active act such as escape or bodily damage, and thus did not apply for correction of age.

2. According to the records, it is evident that the defendant organized in the homeland reserve forces has made a false report on the date of birth and made it erroneous as to what date of birth different from the actual ones as above, and that the defendant participated in the work error of the administrative agency promptly, and the defendant took part in the training and other notification as a member of the homeland reserve forces. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant was the first purpose of evading conscription or call. Second, if it is interpreted that the above act of the homeland reserve forces requires the active act under the above purpose, it cannot be said that the defendant did not request correction of the erroneous date of birth, and there is no materials to deem that there was no active act.

Therefore, the above decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to report military register such as theory of lawsuit or fraudulent act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)