The Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service as a new witness.

On October 31, 2016, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do Military Branch Office to enlistment at the Defendant’s office located in 106 Dong Dong Dong 202, and from December 20, 2016 to the 37 association, and did not enlist by not later than three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do Military Branch Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

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

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant did not enlist in the military as stated in the facts charged, but the Defendant’s act is so-called “ conscientious objection” and thus, not guilty on the ground that it constitutes “justifiable cause” as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. The freedom of conscience realization by passive omission among the freedom of religious conscience can be deemed as a relative freedom that can be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution in a case where there is a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction.

However, the duty of military service, which is recognized by the provision on the defense of our Constitution and the provision on the duty of military service, is the most fundamental requirement for the existence of the nation’s community, ultimately guaranteeing the dignity and value of the people as human beings. Thus, the Defendant’s freedom of conscience, etc. cannot be deemed as a superior value to such constitutional legal interests. As a result, even if the freedom of conscience, etc. of the Defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the above constitutional legal interests, it can be deemed as a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution.

On the other hand, whether punishment should be imposed on a person refusing enlistment in active service, and whether alternative service should be recognized.