Any person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment, except in extenuating circumstances.

On August 12, 2013, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Daegu-do regional military manpower office in the name of the Daegu-gu regional military manpower office to deliver the written notice of enlistment in the military training center on October 14, 2013 from the Defendant’s office located in the north-gu, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, and did not enlist until October 17, 2013, on which three days have passed since

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of accuser C;

1. The Defendant asserts that the “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act exists, as the believers of “D religious organization” and the Defendant refused enlistment according to religious doctrine and conscience.

With respect to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court rendered 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 Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ga1, August 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, August 30, 201). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment in the above provision. The right that conscientious objection according to conscience is exempt from the application of the above provision even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights presented a recommendation to the conscientious objectors.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it has been decided that it does not have any legal binding force.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187 Decided November 29, 2007, etc.). Defendant’s assertion is inconsistent with the above decision of the Constitutional Court and the purport of the decision of the Supreme Court, and thus, cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;