The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Fact-finding and the Defendant were retired from a middle school in Korea, and even though they were not subject to military service, the Military Manpower Administration deemed that the Defendant was not a school in Australia and constitutes a domestic middle school and high school process, thereby deeming the Defendant to be subject to military service.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. 1) The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s final academic background is deemed to be equal to, or equivalent to, a high school graduate. As such, the Defendant has an equivalent academic background to, a person who graduated from a middle school under Article 136(1)2 (g) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2305, Nov. 23, 201) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, which can be transferred to the second citizen’s station. Article 97(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, “Persons whose academic background is not recognized as equal to, a middle school graduate pursuant to Article 97(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act” (Article 136(1)2 (g) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2305, Nov. 23, 201).

The Act stipulates.

subsection (1) of this section.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the defendant is not a person subject to military service or not enlisted in the military.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

(1) The Defendant is a simple fish academic process and is at least one month.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the contents of the Defendant’s reply to the Administrator of the Military Affairs Administration of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant started Yar 10 on April 20, 2004, and completed Yar 12 on November 17, 2006.