On June 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the Defendant’s apartment B apartment C in the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 14, 2014; (b) was enlisted in active duty service on July 35, 2014; and (c) was notified of enlistment in active duty service by the director of the regional military manpower office of North Korea, but failed to enlist after

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of enlistment notice;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act

1. As the Defendant refused to enlist in the army according to religious faith, there is a justifiable reason under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. The fact that the exercise of fundamental rights under the Constitution ought to be carried out within the scope that enables a common life with others within a State community and does not endanger other constitutional values and the legal order of the State is the fundamental limitation of the exercise of all fundamental rights, including the freedom of conscience. In the event that there exists a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction, the freedom of conscience is a relative freedom that can be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

In addition, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, has been prepared to specify the duty of national defense, which is the most fundamental duty of the people, and if the national security is not achieved because such duty of military service is not fulfilled properly, the dignity and value as human beings cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests.

Therefore, for the above constitutional legal interests, the defendant is in accordance with Article 37 (2) of the Constitution.