The Defendant is a “B religious organization” and is a person subject to enlistment in the active duty service on June 19, 2013, and the Defendant’s residence in Yangju City 3 Dong 102, Dong 3, Dong 102, and on July 1, 2013, the Defendant was not enlisted without justifiable grounds even after receiving a notice of enlistment in the active duty service from the head of the Gyeonggi Military Manpower Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act asserts that the refusal of enlistment in accordance with the religious belief constitutes “justifiable cause” as stipulated by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which constitutes “justifiable cause” as a new religious organization.

However, with respect to conscientious objection according to conscience, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court did not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision, and even from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempted from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights presented recommendations.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). The Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept as present against the Constitutional Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s decision.

In order to prevent the malicious circulation that is subject to a criminal disposition after the defendant is notified of enlistment again, the requirements for exemption from military service are satisfied.