Although the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the regional military affairs office of Gyeong-gu Office of Gyeong-si from the Defendant’s office located in Jin-si around November 23, 2015 to December 21, 2015, the Defendant failed to enlist on December 24, 2015 after three days from the date of entering the military service without justifiable grounds, even if he received the notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the regional military affairs office of Gyeong-gu Office of Gyeong-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, a written accusation, a written notice of enlistment in active duty service, or an inquiry about delivery notice;

1. The Defendant guilty of criminal facts and reasons for sentencing under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on the Military Service Act, arguing that the Defendant, as C religious believers, did not enlist in the military according to his religious conscience, and that such conscientious objection constitutes “justifiable cause” to refuse enlistment.

However, 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, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court held that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the above provision, and that the Supreme Court did not derive the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision to conscientious objectors according to conscience, even if Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member, and that even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Civil Rights proposed a recommendation, this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do817, Nov. 29, 2007).

However, even if a sentence has been imposed, the defendant.