Seoul Court Says US Prison Term Qualifies for Korean Military Service Exemption
A Seoul court has ruled that a 14-year prison sentence served in the United States can qualify a Korean national for wartime labor service rather than peacetime military duty, provided the underlying conduct is also a crime under Korean law.
A Korean-born man who served 14 years in a US prison for armed robbery does not have to perform peacetime military service in South Korea, after a Seoul court ruled that qualifying foreign sentences can be recognized under the Military Service Act.
The Seoul Administrative Court sided with the man in a dispute with the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Administration. The agency had argued that the statutory treatment for people with lengthy prison terms should apply only when an overseas inmate is transferred to South Korea to complete the sentence.
Under the Military Service Act, a person sentenced to at least 18 months in prison is assigned to wartime labor service. That classification exempts the person from normal peacetime duty but allows the state to call him up for labor support during wartime.
The plaintiff, whose name was not disclosed, moved to the United States with his family and later became a permanent resident. He was convicted in 2010 of robbery and aggravated assault. After completing his sentence last year, he was deported to South Korea.
A military physical examination initially found him eligible to serve as a social service agent, an alternative form of service. He instead applied to be placed in wartime labor service based on his criminal sentence. The regional military authority rejected that request, leading him to file an administrative lawsuit.
The court found that the law does not say a qualifying prison sentence must have been imposed by a Korean court. It said the policy reasons for keeping people with serious criminal records out of active military units — including military discipline and the quality of the armed forces — apply regardless of where the sentence was served.
Judges also found no meaningful distinction between a prisoner who is transferred to South Korea to finish a foreign sentence and one who completes the entire term overseas.
The court nevertheless imposed an important limit intended to prevent foreign convictions from becoming a route for draft avoidance. A sentence handed down abroad can count only when the underlying act would also constitute a crime under Korean law.
In this case, the court concluded that taking property from a victim while armed and using violence and threats would amount to aggravated robbery in South Korea. The ruling therefore recognized the US sentence for purposes of assigning the man to wartime labor service.