The Defendant is a person in active duty service.

On May 14, 2015, the Defendant’s residence located in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the same year.

6. 23. A notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Daejeon Regional Military Manpower Office in the name of the Daejeon Military Manpower Office to enlist in the 32 company group located in Geumnam-si.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not enlist in the military without justifiable grounds until June 26, 2015, for which three days have passed since the date of the above enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

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

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 assertion is that the Defendant, who is a new witness to women with friendship, refused enlistment in active duty service according to the order of conscience in accordance with the religious doctrine, and thus, there is justifiable reason to refuse enlistment.

2. Determination ① 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, 209Hun-Ba3, 2011Hun-Ba16, etc.). ② Military service duty is ultimately to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens through national security, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests. Accordingly, for the purpose of protecting the constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

Even if such restriction is permitted under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004); and (3) the exemption of conscientious objectors from military service or from not having alternative military service system cannot be evaluated as a violation of the bylaws; and the introduction of alternative military service system.