This constitutes “justifiable cause” as to failure to respond to the call-up of enlistment under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case even though there was no intention to evade enlistment, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the so-called conscience objection, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing evasion of enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court decided that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for exceptions to punishment under the above provision, and that, from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a member, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived from the provision of Article 18 of the "Rules on Civil and Political Rights," and that even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Civil Rights proposed a recommendation, this does not legally binding force even if the said recommendation was presented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004).

Therefore, the facts charged in this case are examined.