The prosecution requested 1 year 6 months in prison at the first trial in the Military Service Act violation case of singer Song Min-ho, who was serving as a social service worker. The prosecution said Song left his duty without a valid reason. For Mr. Lee, the facility staff member standing trial with him, the prosecution also requested 6 months in prison. This staff member is accused of making false attendance records. Song is on trial on charges of leaving his duty without a valid reason during his service as a social service worker. The prosecution said unauthorized absence and poor service were repeated, and Song's side said that if he is given a chance to return to service, he wants to sincerely complete it to the end. This trial went beyond a simple celebrity case and again showed problems in the social service worker system and service management. People especially paid attention to the fact that the institution staff member, who knew the service was neglected but still recorded it like normal attendance, also stood in court.
원문 보기
The prosecution's '1 year 6 months in prison' is not the final decided sentence
The number that stands out most in this article is 1 year 6 months in prison. But in a Korean criminal trial, this number is not the end yet. It is closer to the beginning. This is the sentencing request where the prosecution asks the court, 'this much punishment is appropriate,' and the actual punishment for the defendant is decided later by the court through the sentence.
So even with the same words, '1 year 6 months,' the meaning feels completely different. A sentencing request is the prosecutor's opinion, and a sentence is the judge's final decision. Sentencing factors are reviewed together, like whether it is a first offense, whether the person is reflecting, and how repeatedly the crime happened. The intention to return to service can also be mentioned as a factor for consideration in the case context, but in the end, the court makes the decision after looking at the whole situation.
To understand this case, you cannot look at just one number. You need to also look at how many days a social service worker can miss before it becomes criminal punishment, why the law sees it differently from desertion from active duty, and whether the person can serve again even after the case goes to trial. Only then does the full picture appear.
Sentencing request = prosecutor's request, sentence = court's final decision.
So even if there is a 'request for 1 year 6 months in prison,' the actual sentence can be lower, similar, or rarely different.
What is different between a sentencing request and a sentence?
| Item | Sentencing request | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Who does it | The prosecutor requests it from the court | The judge makes the final decision |
| Meaning | The investigation and prosecution side's opinion that 'this level of sentence is right' | The punishment actually confirmed |
| Legal effect | It cannot bind the court | It takes direct effect on the defendant |
| Can it change | Yes | It is judged separately by reflecting various sentencing factors |
| How to read this case | The prosecution thinks 1 year 6 months in prison is appropriate | The court will decide later by putting together other circumstances too |
After how many days of absence can a social service worker face criminal punishment
| Days of absence | Basic handling | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Total 1~7 days | 5 times extended service for the number of absent days | Administrative sanctions come first rather than criminal punishment |
| Total 8 days or more | Subject to report and up to 3 years in prison | From this point, the crime of leaving military service under the Military Service Act becomes a real issue |
| If there is a valid reason | Case-by-case judgment | Circumstances like illness or loss of consciousness, which are hard to see as the person's responsibility, are important |
| A day when the person served even for part of working hours | It may not be counted as a full day of absence | The Constitutional Court explained that the judgment of 'leaving for the whole day' should be viewed strictly. |
Leaving social service duty and deserting active duty may look similar, but the weight is different.
| Category | Social service worker duty abandonment | Active-duty desertion (leaving military duty) |
|---|---|---|
| Applied law | Military Service Act | Military Criminal Act |
| Punishment standard | Criminal punishment if the total absence is 8 days or more | Leaving military duty itself can become a crime |
| Statutory penalty | Up to 3 years in prison | Even in peacetime, 1 year to 10 years in prison; in wartime or during enemy contact, it is heavier |
| Administrative sanction | For 7 days or less, there is an extended service system | Because of the nature of the military organization, it is handled under a separate military criminal law system |
| How the law sees it | Leaving public-interest work | Seen as damaging military discipline and the combat system |
From 'public service' to social service worker, there was a reason the name changed.
In Korea, many people still call it 'public service.' To see why that word is still used, you need to follow the history of the system.
Step 1: The local defense soldier era
From 1969, there was a local defense soldier system that used supplementary service manpower for local defense roles. You can think of it as a very distant root of today's social service worker.
Step 2: Launch of the public service worker system
In 1995, the public service worker system, which used supplementary service manpower in public areas outside the military, became full-scale. That is why the word 'public service' still remains in the mouths of Korean people.
Step 3: Redesigned around social services
Around 2007~2009, the government started placing supplementary service personnel more systematically into public service support work like social welfare, health·medical care, education·culture, environment·safety, and administrative support.
Step 4: The name was also changed to 'Social Service Agent'
With a legal revision in 2013, the official name changed to Social Service Agent. It was not just for image cleaning, but to show in the name that the actual work is support for social services.
Step 5: The current system
Now, a social service agent is a person who received a supplementary service decision in the military service examination and does support work at public institutions or welfare facilities. In other words, it is not 'someone who does just any work instead of the army,' but a form of military service assigned to public-interest fields set by law.
Can someone serve again even after going to trial?
In the article, Song Min-ho said, 'If I am given a chance to return to service, I want to finish it to the end.' This is not just about feelings. There is actually a separate administrative process for this.
Step 1: It is not an automatic return
For a social service agent, return to service does not happen by simply going back to work. Under the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, it is decided through the procedures of split service and service suspension.
Step 2: The person applies
The process starts when the social service agent submits an application form to the head of the service institution. In other words, the person must officially submit in writing that they 'want to do it again.'
Step 3: The institution head sends it to the regional Military Manpower Office
The head of the service institution sends this application to the chief of the regional Military Manpower Office. That means the local institution does not make the final decision on its own.
Step 4: The regional Military Manpower Office decides the reason and period
The chief of the regional Military Manpower Office checks why the service was stopped, how long it will be stopped, and whether the person can serve again, and then makes a decision. It also shows that being at the trial stage does not automatically block the way.
Step 5: If service starts again, usually the remaining period is filled
In principle, the structure is to fill the remaining mandatory service period after subtracting the time already served. So it is a little different from the image of being reset from the beginning.
Not only the person is punished, the institution staff member can also be responsible
| Subject | Main role | If a problem happens |
|---|---|---|
| The social service agent themself | Serve at the assigned institution and time | If absent without permission or leaving service, may face extended service or criminal punishment |
| Service institution staff member | Check attendance, report unusual signs, write incident reports and interview records | If public records are manipulated, like entering false attendance, separate criminal responsibility is possible |
| Head of the service institution | Overall field management, reporting to the Military Manpower Administration | May become subject to supervision due to poor management |
| Military Manpower Administration | Regular and occasional status inspections, system supervision | Checks whether there was a violation and connects it to complaints and administrative action |
So this case is not just celebrity news, but also news about Korea's military service system
On the surface, this case is trial news about a famous singer. But if you look one layer deeper, it clearly shows how closely Korean society manages military service duty. Even if social service workers do not wear a military uniform, they are still performing military service duty, so even one attendance record is treated not as a private note but as an official record.
Another important point is that if this system works with favoritism, fairness in military service can weaken. Some people serve on active duty, and some people serve in social service. So when false records or poor management happen in social service, people do not see it as just a simple attendance issue, but as a fairness issue.
In the end, whatever sentence the court gives later, the question this case raises is clear. Can Korea's social service system recover trust only through punishment, or does it need to change institution management and the supervision system more tightly too? Even when you look at the trial result, it is important to watch that point together.
If a social service worker leaves service for a total of 8 days or more, it may become subject to criminal punishment under the Military Service Act.
This case asks not only about an individual's violation, but also about institution management responsibility such as false attendance records.
More than one number in trial news, you should also look at the system and process behind it to understand the context of Korean society.
We will show you how to live in Korea
Please give lots of love to gltr life