The defendant is a new witness for women and is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On October 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s residence located in the Sincheon-si Party B and 102 Dong 101, “be enlisted in the 27 association located in the Seocheon-do, Gangwon-do on November 8, 2016” did not, without justifiable grounds, enlist by not later than three days after the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Act on the Military Service Act argues that since the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military according to his religious conscience as a witness with leisure and faith, the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

Military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and national security should be more serious than any value in the situation where two Koreas stand across, and as such, the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests and national security. Therefore, conscientious objection based on the Defendant’s religious conscience cannot be deemed as justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that there is conflict between a judge's conscience as a judge and an individual's conscience.

In a personal position that agrees to the introduction of the alternative service system, but our security situation derived from the inter-Korean substitution has to comply with the current law as a judge who is not an individual before all complementary devices for the introduction of the alternative service system are prepared (for the same reason, it is not easy for the Constitutional Court to make a decision of unconstitutionality on Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act in the present situation.

The Defendant appears to have committed a religious belief.