The defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, and a new witness in women and men.

On August 16, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active service under the name of the head of the Gyeong-si Military Affairs Administration to enlistment in the 25 Army Association located in both cities of Gyeonggi-do on October 13, 2015, from the Defendant’s house located in Y 1414 and 602, and did not enlist, without justifiable grounds, until October 16, 2015, for which three days have passed from the date of enlistment, even if he received a notice of enlistment in the name of the Defendant’s e-mail.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Act on the Military Service Act argues that since the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military according to his religious conscience as a witness with leisure and faith, the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

The duty of military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the national security should be more serious than any value in the situation of inter-Korean confrontation. Thus, the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be said to be superior to the above constitutional legal interests and national security. Therefore, conscientious objection according to the Defendant’s religious conscience cannot be deemed to constitute justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that there is conflict between a judge's conscience as a judge and an individual's conscience.

In a personal position, I agree with the introduction of the alternative service system, but our security situation due to the inter-Korean confrontations has to comply with the current law as a judge who is not an individual before all complementary devices for the introduction of the alternative service system are prepared (in the present situation, the Constitutional Court renders a decision of unconstitutionality on Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act.