The defendant is a witness witness in Jehovahovah.

On March 2, 2015, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-do regional military manpower office to enlist in the Marine Education and Training Team located in the Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Incheon, Incheon.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not enlist until the 23th day of the same month after the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Notice of enlistment in active duty service, and domestic registration/mail delivery;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the pertinent Act asserts that the defendant and his defense counsel's imposition of the total military service duty on the defendant's defendant's religious belief forced acts contrary to the defendant's religious belief, and that the defendant is not liable for the legal act since there is no possibility

However, it cannot be deemed entirely impossible for a conscientious objector to proceed to a lawful act by a conscientious decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). Therefore, the foregoing assertion is difficult to accept.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant refuses enlistment according to religious belief, and thus it is difficult to expect the performance of military service.

Therefore, the sentence of a sentence that meets the requirements for exemption from military service is sentenced, but the defendant is not guilty, and there is no possibility of destruction of evidence or escape.