An analysis has emerged that singer Song Min-ho’s expression of a ‘willingness to re-enlist’ was a strategy aimed at reducing his sentence in connection with his Military Service Act violation case.

On the 28th, lawyer Lee Seung-jae appeared on the YouTube channel ‘Entertainment President Lee Jin-ho’ and reviewed Song Min-ho’s case from a legal perspective.

Earlier, Song Min-ho attended the first hearing on charges of violating the Military Service Act at the Seoul Western District Court on the 21st and admitted to all of the allegations. He is accused of being absent without permission for 102 of the roughly 430 days of his service as a Social Service Agent. In court that day, he said, “I am sorry. I am reflecting on my actions,” and also expressed his intention to re-enlist. The Prosecution Service sought a prison term of one year and six months.

Regarding Song Min-ho’s decision to admit all charges at his first trial, Lee explained, “When the facts are clear, admitting them quickly is advantageous for sentencing,” adding, “Since there is enough evidence and testimony, denying the allegations would likely have worked against him.”

He also pointed out that the so-called ‘willingness to re-enlist’ is not a special gesture. “Serving again for the period of unauthorized absence is a procedure set by law,” he said. “It was framed as if it were a personal decision.” He added, “The only way not to re-enlist is to receive a prison sentence.”

He also addressed the various allegations of preferential treatment that surfaced alongside the case. Referring to the 102 days of unauthorized absence, changes in work location, overseas travel, and long hair during service, Lee said, “This is a level that would be hard to imagine for an ordinary service member,” stressing the need for accountability.

Meanwhile, Song Min-ho’s side is asking for leniency, citing panic disorder and bipolar disorder. However, criticism from the public has continued as signs of private activities during his service have been made public.

On the final ruling, Lee predicted, “The Prosecution Service has requested one year and six months in prison, but in reality, a suspended sentence is more likely.”