The defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active service and a witness in the military.

On September 28, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do Military Manpower Branch Office in the 306 Supplementary Zone located in the Dong-dong of the Government of Gyeonggi-do on November 4, 2014, at around 16:12, the Defendant failed to enlist without justifiable grounds by the date on which three days elapsed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the public notice of enlistment in active duty service, and the certificate of confirmation;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act regarding the assertion of the Defendant and defense counsel. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant, as a witness of Fhovah, refused to enlist in active duty service according to one’s religious conscience, and that the right to conscientious objection is guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. As such, the Defendant asserts that there exists a justifiable reason for refusing enlistment under

However, the Constitutional Court made a decision 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, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga22, 2009Hun-Ga7, 24, 2010Hun-Ga16, 37, 2008Hun-Ba103, 2009Hun-Ba3, 2011Hun-Ba16, etc.), which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, is to ensure that the duty of military service ultimately guarantees the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings through national security, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior value to the above constitutional legal interests. Accordingly, for the above constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of the defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

This is a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004).