The Defendant is a person in active duty service.

On October 14, 2014, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in the Incheon Gyeonggi-si Office to enlist in the 306 supplementary unit located in the Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-si on November 18, 2014, and did not enlist until November 23, 2014, five days after the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the accuser;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of postal inquiry;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant, as a witness of Jehovahovah’s Republic, refused enlistment in active duty service according to his religious doctrine in accordance with the order of conscience, and that such reason constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

In principle, “justifiable cause” as referred to in Article 88(1) is premised on the existence of abstract military service and the confirmation of the performance of such service. However, the reason that can justify the nonperformance of such duty of military service as specified by the decision of the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, i.e., illness, etc., unless it is attributable to the person who failed to perform such duty of military service. As to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2002HunGa1, Aug. 26, 2004). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the above provision, and even from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a member, the right to be exempt from the application of the above provision is not derived, and the right to freedom of the United Nations.