On September 14, 2015, the Defendant, who was subject to enlistment in active service, was in the Defendant’s residence located in the Dong-gu Busan metropolitan area, and was given notice of enlistment in the 39 Boan Association of the 39 Boan Army in the territory of the head of the Busan Regional Military Affairs Administration on November 24, 2015, to enlistment in the 39 Boan Association of the Haan Army in the territory of the head of the Busan Regional Military Affairs Administration on November 24, 2015

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation or a copy of enlistment notice;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel regarding criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act

1. The Defendant alleged that he is a new witness to women in nursing, and thus, was refused to enlist in active duty service according to an order of conscience in accordance with his religious doctrine, and there is a justifiable reason to refuse enlistment.

2. As to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing a person evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court ruled that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the above provision, and that the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a member of the Republic of Korea, does not derive the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision, and that even if the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil Rights proposed a recommendation, this does not constitute a legally binding reason for refusal of enlistment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do20879, Jul. 15, 2004).

As such, the above is the case.