A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

When a person liable for military service intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain permission from the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration.

The Defendant, a person liable for military service, who was permitted to travel abroad from August 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 by the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration for the purpose of studying abroad on or around August 1, 2006, and was rejected by the application for permission for the extension of the period of overseas travel around April 18, 2007, and was notified by the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi Gyeonggi Military Manpower Office to return to Korea by no later than May 17, 2007, but did not return to Korea without obtaining permission for the extension of the period of overseas travel from the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi Military Manpower Administration for the purpose of evading military service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Documentary evidence against A, notification of a person whose period of overseas travel expires, notification of permission for overseas travel, notification of permission for overseas travel, and status of individual immigration;

1. Accusation against those who are obliged to obtain permission for overseas travel and the application of statutes;

1. The purport of the crime of this case concerning criminal facts in Articles 94 (amended by Act No. 9754, Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter the same) and 70 (1) of the former Military Service Act is that the defendant did not return to Korea without any justifiable reason even though the period of permission for overseas travel expires, and the act of this crime is prescribed in the Military Service Act as a crime in order to ensure the faithful performance of the duty of military service and prevent the evasion of the duty of military service as a means of staying abroad, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good. The defendant argued that the defendant did not evade the duty of military service because he was unable to return to Korea on the ground of his study, motive, employment, etc. while he was guilty of the crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant seriously reflects the duty of military service, notwithstanding his studies and employment.