A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On April 22, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Military Service Act at the Jeju District Court for the same year.

8. 19. The Jeju Correctional Institution terminated the enforcement of its sentence.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant was called as public interest service personnel on April 6, 2009 and served in the Dental Care Center located in Seopo-si C from February 13, 2012, and public interest service personnel shall not leave their service for at least eight days in total without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the defendant from June 12, 2012 to the same year.

7.3. He was absent from his service for a total period of not less than 8 days without good cause because he did not work at the above workplace until March.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. A written accusation and a daily service situation book;

1. Before judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (a copy of the judgment attached thereto, confirmation of the date of release from the court, and a copy of indictment);

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 89-2 of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. The Defendant, for the reason of sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders, has a history of being sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and even though three years have not passed since he was sentenced to the sentence and the execution of the sentence was completed, left his service again.

Although the defendant stated that he was not able to complete his work properly for his livelihood, most of the defendant's mothers did not work properly in the service institution.

Before the instant case, the Defendant continued to be absent from work in excess of the annual leave and the Defendant did not work in the service institution in consideration of the Defendant, but did not work in excess of the annual leave of absence, and the number of absence days of absence from work was accumulated and led to the Defendant’s accusation.

The above circumstances are reflected in the sentencing, and all the sentencing circumstances as shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered together and decided as per Disposition.