All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Military Service Act by mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have committed a fraudulent act with the intention of evading military service or having military service reduced or exempted. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal on the part of the lower judgment. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes a violation of Article 86 of the Military Service Act, by acting as if the Defendant had a mental illness with the intention of evading military service duty or having military service reduced and exempted, based on the following: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant’s medical examination report on the use of military service and the process of issuing a written diagnosis on the change of disposition of military service; (c) the Defendant’s mental and physical examination before and after the change of disposition of military service; and (d) the Defendant’s attitude expressed in the statement by a witness living together with the Defendant for a considerable period of time; and (d) the Defendant’s mental examination

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in comparison with the record, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the ground for the judgment explained by the court below is erroneous, or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is unreasonable as it is against logical and empirical rules, and there is no error of mistake of facts.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s and the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, and the Defendant’s cohabiting women who are merely 12 and 13 years of age.