The Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, B.

On October 26, 2012, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office to enlistment in the 306 supplementary unit located in the Gyeonggi-si, the Government of the Gyeonggi-do, from the Defendant’s office located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to November 27, 2012, but failed to enlist without justifiable grounds by no later than three days after the date of said enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement to the effect that the defendant's failure to enlist in the military even after being given a written enlistment notice in this Court;

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the result of serving written enlistment notice;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act of refusing enlistment according to his religious conscience is a right to guarantee the freedom of conscience under Article 18 of the ICCPR and Article 19 of the Constitution. The Defendant’s act constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and thus, is not guilty.

2. In this regard, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to embody the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen. If the national security is not ensured because the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly, the dignity and value as human beings cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the defendant's freedom of conscience is more superior to the above constitutional legal interests.

As a result, for the above constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of the defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

This is a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). Defendant’s act is based on religious conscience.