The Defendant was subject to enlistment in active duty service, and the Defendant’s house located in B on August 25, 2017, and “be enlisted as an 9 Army Association located in the Goyang-dong in the Gyeonggi-si in the Gyeonggi-si in the Gyeonggi-si in the 2017 Gyeonggi-si” did not enlist in the military on October 19, 2017, when he received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the Administrator of the Military Affairs Administration of the Gyeongin-si in the e-mail without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A written statement of accuser C;

1. Notification of enlistment in active duty service (care in reserve service);

1. A list of persons who have not enlisted in active service;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing notification of e-mail;

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

1. The Defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military is conscientious objection and “justifiable cause to refuse enlistment”.

2. Determination

A. A. Religious and conscientious freedom is a relative freedom that can be restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution in a case where there exists a superior legal interest that justify such restriction. As such, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen in the present situation where a division is in a decentralization, and as such, if the duty of military service is not properly performed and the national security is not performed, the dignity and value of the people’s human being cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, the Defendant’s freedom of conscience cannot be deemed as superior value to the constitutional legal interest of guaranteeing dignity and value as a human being. Even if the Military Service Act restricts the Defendant’s religious and conscientious freedom, it is a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7120, Oct. 5, 2009; 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). (b) Since conscientious objection is an generally recognized international law and is not accepted in Korea, conscientious objection is not accepted in accordance with the instant legal provision.