The defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service of religious organizations B.

On October 10, 2016, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of the Gyeong-gu District Office to enlistment in the Army Training Center located in Pyeongtaek-si on December 6, 2016 from the Defendant’s house located in Pyeongtaek-si on October 10, 2016, but failed to enlist for three days after the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation, a list of those not enlisted in active service, and an e-mail inquiry;

1. Notices sent to the Military Manpower Administration (the duty of military service is ultimately to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings.

Therefore, the State’s criminal punishment against so-called conscientious objectors in accordance with reasonable legislative discretion cannot be deemed as going against Articles 10, 19, and 37(2) of the Constitution, which unfairly infringes on the freedom of conscience, or violates Article 6(1) of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Such conscientious objection does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; 2015Do12587, Oct. 29, 2015); the application of statutes

1. As seen earlier, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant as a crime of violating the Military Service Act on criminal facts as stated in the grounds for sentencing under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act.

The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor corresponding to the grounds for exemption from military service is imposed on the defendant, and the period was set by considering the fact that the defendant is the first offender, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the sentencing of the court, etc. (The dwelling of the defendant is specified, and the defendant is not likely to flee in light of his family relation, his attitude to investigate and judge the defendant, etc.).