The Defendant is a “novahovah Witness” and is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On September 22, 2016, the Defendant did not enlist until October 21, 2016, 2016, on the ground that he was a new witness of the Incheon Western-gu, Incheon District, stating that he will enlist in the military according to the education of the five association new soldiers located in Gyeonggi-do on October 18, 2016, even though he received the written notice of enlistment in the active service under the name of the head of the Incheon Military Military Branch Office, which stated that he will enlist in the military according to the education of the five association soldiers located in Seocheon-do, Gyeonggi-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to file a charge of evading military service, notification of additional enlistment in active duty service, and notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment on criminal facts under Article 88(1) of the pertinent Act, as to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment on criminal facts, is a witness of Jehovah, who refuses to enlist in the military according to his religious belief and conscience. As such, the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

The argument is asserted.

The freedom of conscience realization is a relative freedom that can be restricted by law in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution if there is a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction.

Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen. Thus, if the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not ensured, the dignity and value as a human being cannot be guaranteed.

Military service is ultimately aimed at guaranteeing dignity and value as a human being of all citizens.

It cannot be readily concluded that the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests.

Even if the defendant's freedom of conscience is restricted in accordance with Article 37 (2) of the Constitution for the above legal interest, it is a legitimate restriction permitted by the Constitution (Supreme Court Decision 7 July 15, 2004).