Man in His 40s Deported from U.S. After 28 Years Faces Trial for Military Service Act Violation, but... [A Real-Life Case]

[Financial News] In July 1997, A, who was 13 at the time, left for the United States to study at his parents’ decision. In 2005–2006, his parents and younger sibling also moved to the U.S. The family obtained permanent residency or citizenship there, and A also established a home in the United States.
Twenty-eight years passed. The 13-year-old boy who had left for the U.S. was now in his 40s, and had not set foot on Korean soil even once in all that time. However, last October, A had no choice but to return to Korea after being forcibly deported from the United States.
Back in Korea after a long absence, A faced an issue over a possible violation of the Military Service Act. He was required to obtain an overseas travel permit or an extension from the Military Manpower Administration by January 15, 2009, the year he turned 25, but he had not done so.
Prosecutors at the time deemed A’s stay abroad without a permit by the deadline a violation of the Military Service Act and indicted him last April. This was about 17 years after he had been required to obtain permission.
According to legal sources on the 4th, the Seoul Western District Court’s 9th Criminal Division (single-judge, Judge Kim Min-jeong) entered a judgment dismissing the case against A, who had been indicted on a charge of violating the Military Service Act, on August 26. The trial was concluded without a determination of guilt or innocence because the statute of limitations had already expired.
The issue at trial was whether the statute of limitations continued to run while A was in the United States. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that the statute of limitations is suspended during any period a person stays abroad with the intent to evade criminal punishment.
The court first determined that the offense of violating the Military Service Act by failing to obtain an overseas travel permit is an “instantaneous offense,” which ends once the deadline for obtaining permission passes. The offense could not be considered ongoing merely because A continued to stay abroad after that. Accordingly, the court found that the statute of limitations on A’s offense began to run on January 16, 2009, the day after the deadline.
The court also found insufficient evidence to conclude that A had stayed in the U.S. to evade criminal punishment. It took into account that A had left the country at a young age following his parents’ decision, and that his family later moved to the U.S. and built a life there.
There was also no evidence that A or his family had received documents related to military service or been informed of the obligation to apply for an overseas travel permit. Nor was there evidence that they had been notified of a possible investigation or punishment for violating the Military Service Act.
The court ultimately found that A had sought to continue living in the U.S. rather than evade criminal punishment. Accordingly, the statute of limitations continued to run while he was in the U.S., and the court found that it had already expired around January 16, 2014—about 12 years before prosecutors indicted him.
[email protected] Choi Seung-han Reporter