병역법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Upon receipt of a written notice of enlistment of a person subject to active duty service, the defendant shall comply with the enlistment within three days from the date of enlistment.
On September 15, 2017, the defendant, at the residence of the defendant in Dong-gu B apartment, Dong-gu, Busan, and C, and on October 16, 2017, the defendant sent a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Busan regional military manpower office to enter according to the 9-Saman Saman's disease training in Seodong-dong, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Busan on October 16, 2017, but did not comply with the enlistment by not later than three days after the date of enlistment without
2. Determination
A. The so-called conscientious objection and so-called conscientious objection mean refusing to perform the duty of military service accompanied by military training or arms on the ground of conscientious decision formed in religious, ethical, moral, philosophical or other similar motives.
It is not reasonable in light of the fundamental rights guarantee system and the overall legal order, including the freedom of conscience, to uniformly compel conscientious objectors to perform the duty of military service and impose sanctions such as criminal punishment against non-performance of the duty of military service, and also violates the spirit of free democracy such as tolerance and tolerance of the minority.
Therefore, if a genuine conscience is to be conscientious objection, such objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018).B.
Since July 2003, the Defendant began to engage in the activities of D religious organizations from around February 22, 2004, and continued to engage in religious activities on February 22, 2004.
In order to protect one's religion and conscience, it seems that it continues to be active and has maintained a life suitable for the doctrine of D religious organizations.
C. Before the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court’s judgment on conscientious objection, the Defendant refused military service on the ground of religious belief.
The defendant submitted.