The defendant is a person in active duty service.

On June 4, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the active duty service under the name of the director of the Incheon Military Manpower Administration, to enlistment in the 47 Army Training Center in the name of the Incheon Military Manpower Administration on July 27, 2015 from the Defendant’s house located in Kimpo-si B apartment 106 Dong 501, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si on July 4, 2015, but failed to enlist without justifiable grounds

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to data concerning enlistment notice and service of enlistment in active duty service;

1. The reasoning for determination and sentencing of the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on the Military Service Act, and the Defendant, as a witness of Jehovah’s Republic, refused enlistment according to a religious conscience. This is a right recognized pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As such, the Defendant asserts that conscientious objection constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, even from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, the Supreme Court does not have any justifiable reason for the so-called conscientious objection to military service under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and does not derive the right to be exempted from the application of the said provision to conscientious objectors, and presented recommendations by the United Nations Commission on ICCPR.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it has been decided that it does not have any legal binding force.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion against such legal doctrine is rejected.

The defendant is the first offender, and the refusal of enlistment by the defendant is based on religious belief.

The defendant has received a subsequent notice of enlistment and then entered the military.