The Defendant is a person in active duty service.

On May 10, 2012, the Defendant did not enlist on June 28, 2012 at the Defendant’s house located in Namyang-si, C, 203 Dong 1002 (D) and on June 25, 2012, upon receipt of a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do Military Manpower Branch Office, to enlist in the Army Training Center located in the Geumsan-si, Seosan-gu, Sinsan-si on May 10, 201, without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the notice of enlistment in active duty service, written accusation, written accusation;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the “justifiable cause” as prescribed by the Military Service Act does not constitute a crime, inasmuch as he refuses military service according to the freedom of conscience as a person involved in a case involving criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, as the Defendant, as an Eindo, refuses military service.

It cannot be deemed that the legislators’ decision was clearly erroneous that it is difficult to introduce the same as the present in which the social community members’ consensus on military service by religious belief or alternative military service system has not been formed against a person who refuses enlistment in active duty service on the ground of going against one’s conscience. Ultimately, the Defendant’s aforementioned argument does not constitute justifiable grounds under the current Constitution and the Military Service Act by interpretation of the current Constitution, the Military Service Act, and thus does not constitute justifiable grounds under the same provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Constitutional Court Decision 2008HunGa22, Aug. 30, 201).

Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant is imposed, and the defendant is the first offender, and the defendant seems to have no risk of escape is not a statutory detention in consideration of all the circumstances.