The defendant is subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On October 2013, the Defendant received the notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Daegu North Korean Military Manpower Office to enlistment in the active duty service from the Defendant’s house located in Gyeongsan-si B 101 Dong 1106, and on December 9, 2013, from the Defendant’s house located in Gyeong-si, Seosan-si.

However, the Defendant did not enlist in the military on the ground of so-called “novahovah’s Witness” even three days after the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

Defendant’s partial statement

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to public notice of enlistment in active duty service, and parcel-registered mail;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant, as a woman’s believers witness, refused enlistment according to his religious conscience and belongs to the freedom of conscience guaranteed by Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution. This constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and does not constitute a crime.

2. Determination

A. “Justifiable reason” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is, in principle, premised on the existence of abstract military service and the recognition of its performance. However, the reason why the nonperformance of the military service specified by the decision of the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, such as illness, is not attributable to the person who failed to perform the military service, i.e., the reason why the non-performance of the military service cannot be justified. However, even in a case where a person who refused to perform the specific military service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and the right is recognized as having superior constitutional value to the legislative purpose of the above legal provision, if punishment is imposed by the application of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, it would result in undue infringement of his constitutional right. Thus,