A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person in active duty service.

On September 28, 2017, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the active duty service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do North Korean Branch Office to enlistment in the Army Training Center by October 23, 2017, from the Defendant’s dwelling in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Incheon-si, and the Defendant did not enlist until October 26, 2017, for which three days have passed from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A copy of the official document notified to enlistment in active duty service and the progress of delivery;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation and a written accusation;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in active duty service according to a religious conscience as “D religious organization” and that such refusal to enlist in active duty service constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, since the right to refuse to enlist in active duty service is guaranteed by the Constitution.

With respect to the so-called “ conscientious objection according to conscience,” the Constitutional Court decided that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court decided that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the above provision. From the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived, and even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Covenant proposed recommendations, this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do741, Dec. 27, 2007).