On October 29, 2014, the Defendant directly received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office to enlistment from the Defendant’s office located in the Chungcheongnam-gun B to the 306th ethic of December 2, 2014 from the government of the Republic of Korea to the 416th ethic of December of the same year, and did not, without justifiable grounds, enlistment until three days have elapsed from the date of enlistment

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation and an explanatory note;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each enlistment notice and notification in active duty service;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act is “C religious organization” and refused to enlist in the military according to a religious belief. The Defendant asserts that such objection is based on the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution and constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, conscientious objection based on a religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for in the Military Service Act as an exception to punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The reason for sentencing seems to be difficult to expect that the defendant will fulfill his military service in the future because the defendant refuses to enlist in the military according to religious belief.

Under the current law, when a defendant is sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than one year and six months or the suspension of the execution of such imprisonment with prison labor, the defendant will be sentenced to a minimum sentence that meets the requirements for exemption from military service in consideration of the fact that the defendant is subject to the notification of enlistment at the same time and that the malicious circulation subject