On January 22, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service to enlist in the three teams of the Army from the Government-si B, 204 Dong 112, and from March 3, 2015 to March 14:00, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service.

Nevertheless, without good cause, the Defendant did not enlist until March 6, 2014 when three days have passed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

1. Parcel-post inquiry;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notifications and certificates of fact sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. As the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent statutory provisions of the Military Service Act argues that the enlistment is refused according to a religious conscience, the Defendant’s assertion falls under justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and thus, the following facts are not established under the current positive law that does not provide for special cases that can substitute enlistment in active service with respect to a person who refuses enlistment in active service on the grounds of religious belief under the Military Service Act. As such, the grounds alleged by the Defendant do not constitute justifiable cause for refusal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1759, Nov. 24, 201; 2008Hun-Ga22, 2008Hun-Ga7, 2009Hun-Ga7, 24, 2010Hun-Ba16, 37, 2008Hun-Ba103, 2013, 2016 (Joint).

In light of the grounds for refusing the enlistment of the accused with the reasons for sentencing, equity with other similar cases, and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the records of this case, the sentence as ordered shall be determined as per Disposition, and since it does not seem that the accused is likely to flee from the sentence, statutory detention shall not be made.