The Defendant is a new witness of women and children, and is a person subject to social service personnel call-up.

On November 23, 2016, the Defendant did not comply with the convocation of a call-up for social service personnel under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of the Cheongju-si, which was issued by the 37 association up to December 12, 2016, in the Defendant’s residence located in Heak-gu B and 1 Dong 310 on November 23, 2016, for three days after he received the call-up notice under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of the Cheongju-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A letter of public notice given to a call-up of social service personnel, inquiry into military register, certificate of acceptance of mail, written notice, etc.;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of the pertinent Article of the Act and Article 88 (1) 2 of the Military Service Act concerning criminal facts (the choice of imprisonment)

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant refused to call a social service personnel according to a religious conscience as a new witness, and such right to refuse military service is not only the right guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea or Article 18 of the United Nations’s “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” but also the UN Human Rights Committee decided that punishment for conscientious objectors violates Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As such, the Defendant’s refusal to call a social service personnel constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. Determination

A. “Justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act should, in principle, be deemed as the existence of an abstract duty of military service and the existence of the performance of the duty itself, and the reason why it can justify the nonperformance of the duty specified as such, i.e., the reason why the nonperformance of the duty cannot be attributable to the person who committed the act.

However, a person who has refused to fulfill a specific obligation is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.