The defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, and the person who has received a notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment, except in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, on October 5, 2016, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s residence located in the north-gu building C of the Mapo-si, North Korea, and on November 8, 2016, “to be enlisted in the army according to the 27 incorporater’s new disease education located in the Mapo-ri, Gangwon-do, the Defendant,” did not directly receive a muster notice under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration in the Daegu-si, Daegu-si, and did not enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notify the enlistment in active duty service, the list of waiting persons, and the Military Manpower Administration;

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 the Defendant, as “D Religious Organization”, refused to enlist in active duty service according to one’s religious conscience. Since such right to refuse military service is guaranteed by the Constitution, Defendant’s refusal to enlist in active duty service constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

With respect to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court decided 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 2008HunGa22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the above provision. From the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived, and even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Civil and Political Rights proposed recommendations, this does not have any legal binding force.