Defendant is a person B who is subject to active service enlistment.

Although the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the name of the Director General of the Gangwon-si Military Manpower Office to enlistment in the military on August 14, 2017 from the Defendant’s office located in Kuju-si C and D around July 12, 2017, the Defendant failed to enlist without justifiable grounds by not later than three days after the date of enlistment.

Judgment of this Court

1. A conscientious objection that fails to perform military training and bearing arms on the ground of a genuine conscience decision based on a religious, ethical, moral, philosophical, or similar motive formed at his own inside of the relevant legal doctrine constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Here, conscience as referred to in this article is devout, firm, and true.

The belief deep means that it is a depth of a person's inner sense and it affects all his thoughts and actions.

The whole of life, which is not a part of the life, must be under the influence of its belief.

The belief that it is firm means that it is not flexible or variable.

Although it is not necessarily a fixed change, the belief has a clear substance, and it should not be easily changed as it is.

It means that the belief that it is true is not false, but is neither compromise nor strategic depending on circumstances.

Even if the conscientious objectors have a devout and firm belief, if they act differently according to circumstances in relation to such belief, such belief cannot be deemed to be true.

In a specific case pertaining to the violation of the Military Service Act, in a case where a defendant asserts conscientious objection, such conscientious objection cannot be directly and objectively proven, and thus, it should be determined by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to conscience given the nature of things.

Supreme Court Decision 1 November 1, 2018