The Defendant is a Jehovah’s Witness’s Witness, and the Defendant did not enlist in the military on November 13, 2015, and on December 22, 2012 of the same year, he received a notice of enlistment in the active duty service under the name of the Administrator of the Military Affairs Administration of Cheongcheon-si, Gangwon-do, to enlistment in the 102 supplementary unit located in the 102 supplementary unit located in Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do on December 22, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the accusation of a person who evades military service or a person who evades military service (Enlistment and refusal of collection);

1. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Act on the Military Service Act argues that since the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military according to his religious conscience as a witness with leisure and faith, the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

Military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and national security should be more serious than any value in the situation where two Koreas stand across, and as such, the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests and national security. Therefore, conscientious objection based on the Defendant’s religious conscience cannot be deemed as justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that there is conflict between a judge's conscience as a judge and an individual's conscience.

In a personal position, I agree with the introduction of the alternative service system, but our security situation due to the inter-Korean substitution has to comply with the current law as a judge who is not an individual before all complementary devices for the introduction of the alternative service system are prepared (In the present situation, the Constitutional Court is about Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act in the same reason.