병역법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. As the grounds of appeal in this case, the Defendant asserts that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act infringes on the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “Rules on Freedom”) and infringes on the dignity and value of human beings and the right to pursue happiness under Article 10 of the Constitution and the right to equality under Article 11 of the Constitution.
However, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act does not punish a person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service or a written notice of call-up without exception, but rather punishs a person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service or a written notice of call-up within a certain period of time without justifiable cause. As such, the reason for appeal asserted by the defendant is that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act itself does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided by Article 88(1) of the Constitution and the freedom of religion, rather than asserting that the defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military according to a religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and that the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant. It is reasonable to deem
Therefore, we examine whether the Defendant’s act of refusing enlistment according to a religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is unreasonably infringing on the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion as stipulated in the Constitution and the freedom of conscience.
2. Article 19 of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall enjoy the freedom of conscience” and Article 20(1) of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall enjoy the freedom of conscience.”