The Defendant is a believers of the religious organization B, and the Defendant did not enlist in the military on June 28, 2013, at the address of the Defendant located in Echeon-si C, 105 Dong 302, and on August 6, 2013, at the 102 Supplementary Army located in Yongsan-si, Cheongcheon-si, Incheon District Office for the enlistment in the military on August 6, 2013, without justifiable grounds, until August 9, 2013 after three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E statements;

1. Each accusation;

1. Details of domestic registration;

1. Military register inquiry;

1. List of persons who have failed to be enlisted in the army;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a fact-finding certificate (B religious organizations, documented July 25, 2013)

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act

1. The alleged defendant, as a believers of religious organizations B, refuses to enlist in the army according to religious conscience, there is a justifiable reason.

2. As to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the above provision. The right that conscientious objectors are exempt from the application of the above provision even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, and presented a recommendation by the UNFCCC.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it has been decided that it does not have any legal binding force.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187 Decided November 29, 2007, etc.). Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.