No person who has received a notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist in the military without justifiable grounds until the lapse of three days from the date of enlistment.

On April 9, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of enlistment in active service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do Military Manpower Branch Office to enlistment in the Army Training Center on June 9, 2014 at the Defendant’s house located at the end of Pakistan-si 201, and on the ground that enlistment goes against the Defendant’s religious belief, the Defendant did not enlist in the said Army Training Center by June 13, 2014, which was three days after the date of said enlistment.

Accordingly, even after receiving a notice of enlistment in active duty service, the defendant did not enlist before the lapse of three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of accuser E;

1. Enlistment notice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of parcel post offices;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts is deemed to be practically impossible for the defendant to perform his duty of military service under the statutes of the Republic of Korea due to his refusal to enlist according to his religious belief.

The current law that does not recognize the alternative military service system for conscientious objectors is inevitable to punish the defendant.

However, under Article 136 (1) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, the sentence shall be imposed in consideration of the circumstances leading up to the defendant's crime, and the person who was sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for at least one year and six months in the case of a convicted prisoner is subject to enlistment in the second citizen service, and if the defendant is sentenced to a lower sentence, it is probable that the defendant would be punished because he would be subject to punishment because he would be subject to the defendant's statement and attitude refusing military enlistment in light of the defendant's statement and attitude refusing military service, and there is no possibility to destroy evidence against the