around July 16, 2014, at the house of the defendant in Chungcheong City C, the same year.

9.2. Even though he received a written notice of enlistment in active service under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office of the Chungcheongbuk-si, that he will enlist until December, 199, he did not enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. A written accusation;

1. Notice of enlistment in active duty service;

1. Application of domestic Acts and subordinate statutes of registration inquiry;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act is “novah’t Witness” and refuses enlistment according to a religious belief. This assertion is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution and the freedom of religion, and thus constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act. However, conscientious objection based on a religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as prescribed by the Military Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The reason for sentencing seems to be difficult to expect that the defendant will fulfill his military service in the future because the defendant refuses to enlist in the military according to religious belief.

Under the current law, when a defendant is sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than one year and six months or the suspension of the execution of such imprisonment with prison labor, the defendant will be sentenced to a minimum sentence that meets the requirements for exemption from military service in consideration of the fact that the defendant is subject to the notification of enlistment at the same time and that the malicious circulation subject