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

Punishment of the crime

On October 5, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-si regional military manpower office to enlist in the military on November 4, 2014 at the Defendant’s residence located in Ansan-gu B 102, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and did not enlist in the military without justifiable grounds until the seventh day of the same month after three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, as the believers’ witness, the Defendant refused enlistment according to religious belief and conscience, and the right to conscientious objection is recognized pursuant to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Defendant has justifiable grounds for not enlistment.

However, the fundamental rights under the Constitution should be exercised within the extent that it enables a common life with others within a community of the State and does not endanger other constitutional values and the legal order of the State. Thus, the freedom of conscience realization is a relative freedom that can be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution in the event there exists a constitutional legal interest to justify such restriction, and Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is established to embody the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen. If such duty of military service is not properly performed and the national security is not performed, the dignity and value as human beings cannot be guaranteed. Thus, the duty of military service ultimately is to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interest, and thus, it cannot be said that the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is more valuable than the above constitutional legal interest.