The defendant is a new taxpayer who is subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On September 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the Defendant’s head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Apartment-gu and the Defendant’s house located in Yongsan-gu, and (b) on September 14, 2017, “to be enlisted in the second association located in Yang-gu, Yangwon-gun, Yangwon-gun by October 17, 2017”; and (c) was delivered a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration in the name of the Defendant, the mother of the Defendant, through

Summary of Evidence

1. A legal statement that he did not enlist in the active duty service after having received a written notice of enlistment in the active duty service;

1. A written accusation;

1. Notification, notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to confirm facts, such as notification of additional enlistment in active duty service, a list of enlisted persons not enlisted in active duty service, a list of military service years, a resident registration card,

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

1. The gist of the assertion is that the right to refuse military service is inherent in the freedom of conscience and religion as stipulated under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution. As such, the refusal of military service based on the Defendant’s religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and the Defendant is aware that the refusal of military service based on religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and is willing to perform alternative military service, so the Defendant has no intention to evade enlistment.

2. The duty of military service is to ultimately ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings.

Therefore, the State’s criminal punishment of so-called conscientious objectors in accordance with the reasonable legislative discretion violates Articles 10, 19, and 37(2) of the Constitution, and thus unfairly infringes on the freedom of conscience against Article 10, 19, and 37(2) of the Constitution, or “civil and political rights” and Article 6(1) of the Constitution.