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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as a person subject to enlistment in active service, is a new religious organization.

On June 26, 2013, the Defendant directly received a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-do regional military manpower office to enlistment in the active service from the Defendant’s office located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu to the Army Training Center located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do on July 29, 2013, but failed to enlist without justifiable grounds from July 29, 2013 to August 1, 2013, which is the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

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

1. The grounds for determining the Defendant’s assertion and sentencing as to facts constituting an offense under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act and the Defendant alleged that conscientious objection constitutes justifiable grounds as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act. As such, the duty of military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as a human being. As such, the freedom of conscience cannot be deemed superior value without any restriction, and thus, the State’s criminal punishment against so-called conscientious objectors in accordance with the reasonable legislative discretion violates Articles 10, 19, and 37(2) of the Constitution, thereby unfairly infringing on the freedom of conscience.

Article 6(1) of the Constitution or Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot be deemed as contrary to Article 6(1) of the Constitution, and such objection does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941 Decided December 27, 2007, etc.). Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

In relation to sentencing, the Defendant, as a believers of “B religious organization”, has avoided enlistment according to the belief of the religious doctrine above, and the Defendant, instead of enlistment, lives in prison instead of enlistment.