"....." Around March 13, 2018, a muster notice sent in the name of the director general of the Gyeongnam Military Manpower Office was received by electronic mail on March 16, 2018, and it was confirmed on March 16, 2018, but did not respond to the convocation of three days after the call without

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion is the believers of “B,” a religious person who has a doctrine of interest in military training or opposing military training, and refuses to call for military education according to religious conscience, which constitutes “justifiable cause” under the main sentence of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

B. The relevant legal doctrine (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018) uniformly compelling conscientious objectors to perform the duty of military service and imposing sanctions, such as criminal punishment, against nonperformance is unreasonable in light of the constitutional fundamental rights guarantee system, including the freedom of conscience, and the overall legal order, and also violates the spirit of free democracy, i.e., tolerance and tolerance for minority objectors.

Therefore, if a genuine conscience is conscientious objection, such objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

A defendant who asserts conscientious objection may prove the absence of a genuine conscience by presenting prima facie evidence that he is imminent, specific, that his value of existence as a human being is destroyed if he does not act accordingly, and that his conscience is devout, firm, and sincere. A prosecutor may prove the absence of a genuine conscience by impeachmenting the credibility of materials presented.

At least, it is possible for a prosecutor to prove that there is no justifiable reason to prove that the conscientious objector has no justifiable reason.