On June 22, 2016, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment from the head of the Military Manpower Administration of North Korea to the Army Training Center located in Seog-gu, Seojin-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City by August 8, 2016.

However, the defendant did not enlist in the military without justifiable grounds within three days from the date of enlistment.

2. Defendant’s assertion and issues

A. The Defendant asserted that he did not object to war and refused enlistment according to the conscience formed by a religious rupture, namely, not impeding other persons.

The refusal of enlistment by the Defendant constitutes “the freedom of conscience” guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Defendant does not constitute a crime because he/she has "justifiable cause" under Article 88 of the Military Service Act.

B. The key issue is Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act imposing punishment on a person who evades military service without justifiable grounds.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that a person who refuses military service on the ground of conscience falls under “justifiable cause” as provided by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Therefore, the issue of whether conscientious objectors are subject to criminal punishment is based on “justifiable cause” to include “contestable conscience”.

3. Interpretation of “justifiable cause”

A. The concept and content of the freedom of conscience and the constitutional significance of conscientious objection guarantees the freedom of conscience as fundamental rights of citizens (Article 19 of the Constitution). conscience protected by the Constitution is “a strong and serious voice of mind that one’s value of existence as a human being would be lost if one does not act in determining right and wrong.”

The term “the freedom of conscience” to guarantee “the freedom of conscience” is not consistent with democratic thinking or values, but is an individual phenomenon.