As a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, the Defendant, from May 26, 2014, issued a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in the name of the former North Korean military manpower office to the 35 company group located in the former North Korean office, from the Defendant’s office located in the Nam-si, Seoul to July 1, 2014, but failed to enlist without justifiable grounds within three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A written accusation;

1. A certificate of evasion of enlistment;

1. Determination on the enlistment notice and additional notice, and the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel for the mail inquiry

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant refused enlistment in active service according to one’s religious conscience as a witness with women and men.

Since such conscientious objection is guaranteed by the freedom of conscience under the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there exists “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act that the Defendant refused to enlist.

2. Determination

A. First, as to the assertion regarding the freedom of conscience under the Constitution, conscientious objection pursuant to a religious conscience cannot be deemed to include justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965 delivered on July 15, 2004). B.

Next, with respect to the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, Article 88(1)1 of the Military Service Act constitutes a limitation Act on the freedom of conscience under Article 18(3) of the said Covenant, but the failure to establish an alternative military service system itself cannot be evaluated as a violation of the said Covenant, and a wide range of discretion should be granted to the legislative parties of the member country regarding the introduction of the alternative military service system. As such, the decision of the legislators that deemed that it is difficult to introduce the alternative military service system is considerably unreasonable.

shall not be deemed to have been clearly erroneous.

In addition, conscientious objectors are given an opportunity to exempt military service or alternative military service.