The Defendant is a person in active duty service.

The Defendant directly received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service from the Defendant’s house located in Ansan-si B and 202 in Ansan-si around June 3, 2016, and from the 27th day of the same month to the Army Training Center located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, the Superintendent of the Regional Military Manpower Office, to which the Defendant would enlist in the Army Training Center under the name of the Superintendent of the Regional Military Manpower Office, but did not enlist until the 30th day

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act on Criminal Facts cannot be deemed as constituting “justifiable cause” under the Military Service Act, and punishing the conscientious objectors is not contrary to the freedom of conscience under Article 19 of the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). Furthermore, Article 18 of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” to which the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the above provisions of the Military Service Act cannot be derived. Even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Freedom presented a recommendation, this does not have legal binding force even if it was presented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). - The reason for sentencing is that the defendant constantly expresses his intention to refuse enlistment in accordance with religious faith and thus, the defendant may again be sentenced to criminal punishment for less than one year and six months, etc.