The Defendant is a person in active duty service.

On October 25, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration in the Daegu-si, Daegu-si, that he will enlist in the Army Training Center located in the Seosan-si on December 14, 2015 at the Defendant’s residence located in the Si/Gu-si B and 203 around October 25, 2015, 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. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, written accusation, written notice of enlistment in active duty service, and written notice sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant refused to enlist in the military according to his religious conscience as a female witness. Since such conscientious objection is guaranteed pursuant to Article 18 of the International Covenant on the Freedom of conscience and Civil and Political Rights under the Constitution, it constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment in a judgment, has been prepared to embody the duty of national defense, which is the most fundamental duty of the people, and military service ultimately aims to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings.

The freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests.

As a result, even if the freedom, etc. of a defendant’s conscience is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the foregoing constitutional legal interest, such restriction may be deemed as a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Constitutional Court Decision 2008HunGa22, Aug. 30, 201, etc.). Even if Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes conscientious objection, the said Covenant may be deemed as a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution.