The defendant is a person subject to active duty service.

No person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist in the army even though three days have passed from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

On September 12, 2016, the Defendant received the Defendant’s written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Daejeon Chungcheongnam-gu Military Affairs Administration, that the Defendant will enlist in the Army Training Center located in Asan-si, Seosan-si on October 31, 2016 from the Defendant’s house located in Asan-si, Asan-si.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not enlist in the military without justifiable grounds within three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A statement that contains a written accusation of D;

1. Application of each Act or subordinate statute to the public notice of enlistment in active duty service (the last ten months), the delivery status of the notice of enlistment, and inquiries about military register;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of conviction under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts, asserts that he refused to enlist in the military according to one’s conscience as “sworn witness” and that this constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, has been prepared to specify the duty of national defense, which is the most fundamental duty of the people, and if such duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not guaranteed, it cannot be guaranteed the dignity and value as human beings.

Therefore, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be said to be superior to the above constitutional legal interests.

Therefore, even if the defendant's freedom of conscience is restricted pursuant to Article 37 (2) of the Constitution for the above constitutional legal interests, it shall be a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004).