A person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service shall not be enlisted within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service in the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration in the name of the head of the North Korean District Office on December 23, 2017, to the effect that it is personal e-mail (C) from around 102 Dong 401, the Defendant did not enlist for the period of three days after the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the fact that he did not enlist as stated in the facts charged is recognized);

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written confirmation of the evasion of enlistment, notification of enlistment in active duty service (subject to enlistment during December 17), and notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion on the crime does not appear in the army against his religious conscience and thus, the Defendant’s enlistment as a new witness does not appear in the army against his own religious conscience. As such, there exists a justifiable reason as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service

The argument is asserted.

However, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the most fundamental duty of national defense, and it seems clear that if the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not performed, the dignity and value as human beings cannot be guaranteed. Thus, the duty of military service ultimately aims to ensure the dignity and value as human beings of all citizens, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, even if the freedom of conscience of the defendant is restricted in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the above constitutional legal interests, it is a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 200 July 15, 2004).