The Defendant is a Jehovah’s Witness.

Although the Defendant was determined to be subject to enlistment in active service on October 21, 2010, the enlistment was postponed until December 10, 2015 due to university attendance and difficulty in living. On November 1, 2016, the Defendant was not enlisted in the said military unit by December 1, 2016, on the ground of his religious belief that he could not practice a war, and that he could not directly receive a written notice of enlistment, and that he was not enlisted in the said military unit by December 1, 2016, on the ground of his religious belief that he could not practice a war.

Accordingly, even after receiving the notice of enlistment in active duty service, the Defendant did not enlist in the military for three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written confirmation for receipt of enlistment notice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to bring an accusation against any offender of the Military Service Act;

1. As to facts constituting an offense, the Defendant asserts that he does not refuse enlistment without justifiable grounds, since he did not evade the duty of military service itself, but refuses the duty of military service in the form of a total unit by conscience.

However, the refusal of military service constitutes refusal of military service, and military service is ultimately to ensure the existence of a community of the State and the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and thus, the Defendant’s religious conscience’s freedom cannot be deemed as superior value to such constitutional legal interests. Thus, even if the freedom of conscience is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for such constitutional legal interests, it may be deemed a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that a religious belief refusing to hold a gun constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and the above assertion is rejected.