A person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service shall comply with the call within three days from the date of enlistment.

Nevertheless, on November 22, 2016, the Defendant did not respond to the enlistment by the date three days after the date of enlistment on the ground that he was a new witness of the head of the Military Affairs Administration in the name of the head of the Daegu-gu Military Affairs Administration, Daegu-si, to enlist in the nine association new soldiers training unit located in the Dong-gu, Seoyang-gu, Busan-si, Daegu-si on December 26, 2016, on the ground that he was sent a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the regional military affairs administration office, but did not comply with the enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Written accusation, notice of enlistment in active duty service, certificate of dividend results, written notice, confirmation of the facts of witnesses and witnesses, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing identification numbers;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act, the Defendant asserts that rather than evading the duty of military service itself, the Defendant refused the duty of military service in the form of a unit of conscience, which constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88 of the Military Service Act.

However, the refusal of military service constitutes refusal of military service, and military service is ultimately to ensure the existence of a community of the State and the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and thus, the Defendant’s religious conscience’s freedom cannot be deemed as superior value to such constitutional legal interests. Thus, even if the freedom of conscience is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for such constitutional legal interests, it may be deemed a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that a religious belief refusing to hold a gun constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and the above assertion is rejected.

The duty of military service for the reason of sentencing does not recognize the alternative system as the basic duty of the people.