The defendant is a person in active duty service.

On September 29, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service in the Army Training Center No. 3 and No. 1610, and “S. 14:00, 504, the Defendant was sent to the Army Training Center located in the Army Training Center No. 1404, Oct. 10, 201,” by refering to the notice of enlistment in active duty service in the name of the director of the regional military manpower office.

Nevertheless, without justifiable grounds, the Defendant did not enlist in the military for more than three days after the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Enlistment notice in active duty service and additional notice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire into domestic registration/post office mail;

1. The reasoning for judgment and sentencing on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant refuses military service according to one’s conscience formed by his religious doctrine as a new witness. As such, this constitutes “justifiable cause” for refusing military service under the main sentence of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

The freedom of false conscience and religion should be guaranteed to the maximum constitutional right, which is the most fundamental right associated with the mental domain of human beings.

However, if the freedom of conscience or the freedom of religion is simply expressed in the territory of the human body and conflicts with other constitutional values, it cannot be said that the freedom of conscience is always guaranteed on the ground that it is related to the mental area.

Furthermore, it is the basic limitation of the exercise of all fundamental rights, including freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, that the exercise of fundamental rights under the Constitution makes it possible for people to live a community with others within a state community, and should be done within the scope that does not endanger other constitutional values or the legal order of the state.

Therefore, there is a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction of conscience and religion.