The Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service as a new witness.

Around October 6, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of enlistment in active duty service to the Defendant’s house located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B apartment 319 Dong 1201, and on November 17, 2014, to the Army Training Center located in Seosan-gu, Seosan-si. However, the Defendant did not enlist without justifiable grounds even after three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of a written accusation, a written accusation, and the statutes governing the enlistment notice for active duty servicemen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts is that the defendant refuses enlistment according to a religious belief, and even though the need has been raised several times, alternative military service system that allows a person who refuses enlistment according to a religious belief as the defendant has not yet been prepared so far. In light of the defendant’s religious belief, it seems difficult to expect the defendant to perform military service in light of the defendant’s religious belief. According to Article 136(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, only a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with or without prison labor for at least one year and six months is subject to enlistment in the second citizen service, and thus, if the defendant is sentenced to a lower sentence, there is a possibility that the defendant would be subject to punishment by refusal of enlistment, and in consideration of equity between the person performing the military service and other similar cases, the sentence against the defendant is inevitable.

The above circumstances shall be determined by taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, academic background, career, living environment, family relationship, and motive and circumstances leading to the crime, etc. However, the defendant is not likely to destroy evidence or flee, and thus the court's custody is not allowed.