Trainer Administered Steroids During Military Physical Exam, Sentenced to Prison with Probation

"If Aware of Potential to Cause Disease, Drug Use Is Deemed for Evasion or Reduction of Military Duty"

[Court Ruling]

A health trainer who administered steroids and other drugs during the military physical examination process was sentenced to a suspended prison term for violating the Military Service Act. The ruling emphasized that even if the drugs were taken due to the nature of the profession, if there was knowledge that the drugs could cause diseases that qualify for military exemption, it should be considered as an act to evade or reduce military service obligations.

The Criminal Division 2 of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) on the 13th upheld the original ruling sentencing Mr. A, who was charged with violating the Military Service Act, to one year in prison with a two-year suspension (Case No. 2024Do18498).

[Facts]

Mr. A was initially classified as a Grade 2 active duty soldier during his first military physical examination in May 2013. He then left for Australia in February 2017 for academic reasons and returned in December of the same year to undergo another military physical examination. At that time, he was assigned a Grade 7 re-examination due to hypertension (with a 3-month healing period), and in March of the following year, he was classified as Grade 2 due to "essential hypertension" during the re-examination.

However, during the re-examination period, Mr. A administered steroids and other drugs at his home using syringes, which could cause side effects such as hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and liver damage. The prosecution charged Mr. A with violating the Military Service Act, alleging that he took the drugs to evade or reduce his military service obligations.

Mr. A claimed, "Due to the nature of my job as a health trainer, I took steroids to build muscle in a short period," and argued, "I did not take the drugs to evade or reduce my military service obligations."

[First and Appellate Court Judgments]

The first trial accepted Mr. A's claim and acquitted him. The first trial stated, "Considering that Mr. A applied for KATUSA but was rejected, and that he sent messages to acquaintances indicating he would serve in the military, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution that Mr. A damaged his body to evade or reduce military service obligations."

However, the appellate court ruled differently. The appellate court found that Mr. A damaged his body to evade or reduce military service obligations, overturned the first trial's ruling, and sentenced him to one year in prison with a two-year suspension. Additionally, 240 hours of community service were ordered.

The appellate court stated, "Mr. A was classified as Grade 2 in the March 2019 physical examination and was notified of his enlistment date in May of the same year. Before the enlistment date, he postponed military service for 60 days due to acute hepatitis and took drugs for more than two months around the enlistment date under the pretext of preparing for a competition. Mr. A clearly knew he was subject to enlistment and that hypogonadism could be grounds for postponement or exemption, yet he took drugs that posed a high risk of causing hypogonadism for a considerable period exceeding two months."

It further explained, "Considering Mr. A’s considerable research in nutrition and health training, as well as his career as a health trainer, it appears he was well aware that the drugs could cause hypogonadism."

Moreover, "Although Mr. A cited his application to KATUSA and messages to acquaintances about serving in the military as grounds for acquittal, considering the process, period, reasons, and frequency of his military service postponements, it is difficult to conclude that he voluntarily intended to complete military service. Such conduct undermines the foundation of the military service system and requires strict measures," the court ruled.

[Supreme Court Judgment]

The Supreme Court found no error in the appellate court’s judgment and confirmed it as is.

Reporter Han Su-hyun, Legal Times

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.