The defendant is a religious religious believers B.

On October 4, 2016, the Defendant was issued a written notice of enlistment under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of Daejeon Chungcheongnam-si, Daejeon to enlist in the Army Training Center located in Seosan-si on the 24th day of the same month through his mother D, and the Defendant did not enlist on the 27th day of the same month after three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of the E-Appellant’s written statement;

1. Notice of additional enlistment in active duty service (in October), the current status of delivery, and application of each Act or subordinate statute to which inquiries about military register are entered;

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 “B religious organization” 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 freedom of conscience of a defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the above constitutional benefit and protection of legal interests, it would be a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965 delivered on July 15, 2004, etc.). Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant against such legal doctrine is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant is subject to criminal punishment.