The Defendant is a person subject to call-up to social work personnel service who is a new witness.

On October 19, 2015, the Defendant refused to enlist in the military on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s house B, B, 203, 201, and 14:00 on November 26, 2015, the Defendant’s notice of convening a social work personnel call to individually enlist in the Army Training Center located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, is served electronically by the Defendant’s electronic mail; and (b) the enlistment and the collection of arms do not correspond to the doctrine of conscience

Accordingly, even though the defendant was served with the call notice, he did not respond to the call even after three days from the call notice without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A person asserts to the effect that the refusal of military service based on a religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, since he/she is guaranteed the right to conscientious objection based on a religious conscience under the Constitution and the International Covenant as a person evading the call-up to social work personnel service (a person who is a woman’s believers and a witness). Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act provides that the refusal of military service based on a religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the same Act. In principle, “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the same Act ought to be deemed to be limited to a cause not attributable to the non-performance of the duty of military service, such as a disease, that is, the existence of abstract military service duty and the existence of the performance of the duty of military service, and that the refusal of military service based on a religious conscience is not included therein, and the Constitutional Court consistent with the decision that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the evasion of enlistment once (see Constitutional Court Order 20021.).