The defendant is a witness with her mother.

On June 3, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the active duty service under the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-do regional military manpower office to enlist in the 35 army located in the Nam-gu Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, 2015, and the 35 army located in the 35 army located in the Jeonbuk-gun.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not enlist in the military without justifiable grounds until the 31st day of the same month after the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of accusation officials;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of notification of enlistment in active service;

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

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant, who is a witness with friendship, refused to enlist in the army according to his religious conscience. Such conscientious objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and does not constitute a crime.

2. As to the so-called 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 Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the above provision, and the right that conscientious objectors are exempt from the application of the above provision is not derived from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, and presented a recommendation by the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it is judged that it does not have any legal binding force.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Ultimately, the Defendant’s refusal of enlistment according to religious conscience is legitimate under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.