The Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service with C religious organizations.

Although the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in order to enlist in the active service from the Defendant’s house located in Busan D, 607 (E apartment) on July 19, 2013 to the 306 supplementary unit located in Yongsan-dong, Jung-si on August 27, 2013, the Defendant failed to enlist without justifiable grounds until September 13, 2013, for which 17 days have passed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation or a written accusation;

1. The Defendant asserts that the refusal of enlistment in accordance with a religious belief constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which constitutes an exception to punishment under Article 88(1) of the same Act.

However, with respect to 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, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court ruled that conscientious objection based on conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision, and that even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which a country is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). The Defendant’s above assertion is difficult to accept as of the present point contrary to the Constitutional Court’s decision and the purport of the Supreme Court’s decision