On October 13, 2014, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-si regional military manpower office to enlist in the field training center on November 24, 2014 at the Incheon Gyeonggi-si regional military manpower office located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and failed to enlist, without justifiable grounds, until November 27, 2014, when three days have elapsed from the date of enlistment on the ground of religious faith, which is a female and a witness.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

1. Notices sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing military register classification;

1. Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts provides that the duty of military service based on a conviction judgment is ultimately to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings. Thus, the freedom of conscience cannot be considered as superior value without any restriction.

Therefore, the State’s criminal punishment of conscientious objectors in accordance with the reasonable legislative discretion violates the Constitution Article 10, Article 19, and Article 37(2) of the Constitution, thereby unfairly infringing on the freedom of conscience.

There is no violation of Article 6(1) of the Constitution or Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In addition, conscientious objection does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do5502, Jul. 10, 2014; 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004).