The defendant is a religious organization doctrine as a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

Around June 17, 2013, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office to the effect that “be enlisted at the office of the Defendant, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 201, from the office of the Defendant (Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu 201 to the supplementary order of July 102, 2013, but did not enlist without justifiable grounds

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Notification of enlistment in active duty service, and application of statutes of the domestic registry office, postal investigation;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act where the Defendant, as “B religious organization’s believers, refused enlistment according to that religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1).

However, "justifiable cause" in the above legal provision is, in principle, premised on the existence of abstract military service and the confirmation of its performance itself, but it should be deemed that there is a reason that can justify the non-performance of the military service specified by the decision of the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, i.e., disease, etc., as long as there is no reason attributable to the non-performance

In addition, the above legal provision was prepared to embody the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen, and it seems clear that if the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not performed, the dignity and value of human beings cannot be guaranteed. Thus, the duty of military service ultimately aims to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be regarded as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, for the above constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of the defendant is restricted in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

This is also constitutional.