The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was suffering from mental illness to the extent that he was exempt from military service, in light of the following: (b) there was no special circumstance when he was enrolled at the elementary, middle, and high school; (c) the situation of the entrance into a university was hosium; (d) the result of the PNAS inspection, which is the symptoms of mental illness, is close to the normal conditions; (c) the Defendant was hospitalized at a hospital for mental illness; and (d) the Defendant was deemed to have been discharged from the hospital for a long time on account

It is difficult to see it.

As such, even though the defendant had committed a fraudulent act as if he suffered from mental illness with a view to having military service mitigated, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The phrase “act of deception” as referred to in Article 86 of the Military Service Act refers to an act of deceptioning and attempting to reduce or exempt military service by deceiving a military administrative authority even though it does not fall under the conditions of exemption from military service, or even if it does not fall under such physical condition. Thus, it should be deemed that the act of deception was performed only when the defendant was committed at the stage of having a direct risk of evading performance of military service and impairing the propriety of the military administration to the extent corresponding to the escape, diving, or physical damage, which is the attitude of other act, and having evaded performance of military service and having reached the stage of having a direct risk of impairing the propriety of the military administration (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1011, Jun. 26, 2008, etc.). Accordingly, the court below and the trial court duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence and evidence, namely, the facts charged in this case was committed with a mental division for the purpose of obtaining exemption from military service without a mental division.

There is no fact alleged, and only complaining of symptoms, such as “damage, damage, or exchange.”