The defendant is a witness witness of Hohovah and is subject to enlistment in active duty service.

The Defendant, at around October 16, 2017, was given a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration, to enlistment in the Republic of Korea, according to the second incorporated association No. 2 in the territory of the Republic of Korea, both of which are located in the Republic of Korea, from the Defendant’s residence located in Sjuju City, to November 28, 2017, and did not enlist until three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

1. The enlistment notice in active duty service and the progress of delivery;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to confirm facts;

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

1. The Defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military is conscientious objection and “justifiable cause to refuse enlistment”.

2. Determination

A. A. Religious and conscientious freedom is a relative freedom that can be restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution in a case where there exists a superior legal interest that justify such restriction. As such, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen in the present situation where a division is in a decentralization, and as such, if the duty of military service is not properly performed and the national security is not performed, the dignity and value of the people’s human being cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, the Defendant’s freedom of conscience cannot be deemed as superior value to the constitutional legal interest of guaranteeing dignity and value as a human being. Even if the Military Service Act restricts the Defendant’s religious and conscientious freedom, it is a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7120, Oct. 5, 2009; 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). (b) Since conscientious objection is an generally recognized international law and is not accepted in Korea, conscientious objection is not accepted in accordance with the instant legal provision.