On July 28, 2014, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Gwangju Nam-gu B, 801 Dong 205 around July 28, 2014, delivered a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in Gwangju-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Gwangju, to enlistment in the 31st group located in the 31st group in Chungcheongnam-gu, Gwangju on August 26, 2014, but failed to enlist without justifiable grounds until August 28, 2014,

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A list of details of the challenge of enlistment in active service, parcel-post investigation, enlistment notification, and enlistment notification in active service;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notifications and certificates of fact sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the refusal of enlistment in active duty service according to one’s religious conscience belongs to the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, and this does not constitute a crime because it constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. Determination

A. “Justifiable reason” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, is, in principle, premised on the existence of abstract military service and the recognition of its performance. However, it should be deemed that there is a reason that justify the non-performance of the military service specified by the decision of the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, i.e., disease, or any other reason that is not attributable to the non

However, even in cases where a person who has refused to perform a specific duty of military service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and furthermore, even in cases where the right has superior constitutional value to the function of the legislative purpose of the legal provision of this case, if punished by applying the legal provision of this case, it would result in unfair infringement of his constitutional rights.