A university student in his 20s, referred to as Mr. A, who pretended to have a mental illness to avoid conscription as an active-duty soldier, has been convicted. On October 30, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division 3 (Presiding Justice Noh Kyungpil) upheld the original verdict, sentencing Mr. A to one year in prison, suspended for two years, and 80 hours of community service for violating the Military Service Act (2025Do9602).


[Facts]

In order to be assigned as a Grade 4 social service agent, Mr. A claimed during his first conscription physical examination in November 2019 that he had "suicidal impulses" and told psychiatrists that he "had depression and social phobia, had taken medication, but felt no improvement," thereby feigning a mental illness. In September 2021, Mr. A was designated as eligible for social service agent duty.


After being designated as eligible for social service agent duty, Mr. A stopped receiving treatment for mental illness as of October 2021. As a result, a special judicial police officer from the Military Manpower Administration launched an investigation. In January 2024, prosecutors indicted Mr. A for violating the Military Service Act. Prosecutors determined that Mr. A had never suffered from a mental illness prior to his first psychiatric consultation in February 2020, had maintained good relationships with classmates throughout elementary, middle, and high school, and had led a normal social life after entering university, including joining clubs. Despite this, he used deception to obtain a reduction in his military service obligations.


[Lower Court Rulings]

The court of first instance sentenced Mr. A to one year in prison, suspended for two years, and 80 hours of community service. The court stated, "Although Mr. A did not suffer from a mental illness so severe as to make it impossible to fulfill his military duty, he intentionally exaggerated or made false statements to psychiatrists while seeking to reduce his military service obligations." The court also recognized that Mr. A deceived doctors by pretending to take prescribed medication regularly, when in reality he had hardly purchased any. Mr. A's defense argued that the procedures of the Military Service Act, specifically the confirmation physical examination, were not followed during the investigation, but the court found that "conducting a confirmation physical examination is a discretionary act and is not necessarily a prerequisite for investigation."


The appellate court dismissed Mr. A's appeal. The defense argued that the Military Manpower Administration's directive allowing special judicial police officers to investigate without a confirmation physical examination was invalid. However, the court ruled that "the directive, which allows special judicial police officers to investigate those suspected of evading military service without a confirmation physical examination, supplements the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, which is a higher-level regulation, and is effective as a legally binding regulatory order."


[Supreme Court Ruling]

The Supreme Court stated, "There was no error in the lower court's judgment that violated the rules of logic and experience, exceeded the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstood the legal principles regarding the establishment of the crime of violating the Military Service Act, the legality of the indictment procedure, or the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence," and dismissed Mr. A's appeal.


[Military Manpower Administration Position]

An official from the Military Manpower Administration stated, "Mr. A's individual military service information cannot be provided to third parties under Article 18 of the Personal Information Protection Act." However, the official explained, "If an act of evading military service is confirmed to be illegal under Articles 155 and 155-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, a new conscription physical examination will be conducted, and military service obligations will be imposed based on the results." This implies that Mr. A will likely not be able to avoid active-duty enlistment.



Reporter Lee Sangwoo, The Law Times


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

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

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.

Today’s Briefing