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 November 8, 2013, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Incheon Gyeonggi-do Military Affairs and the head of the Incheon Military Affairs Administration, “I am on December 24, 2013, to the 306 supplementary unit located in the Dong-dong located in the Dong-dong of the Government of Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do.”

Nevertheless, without justifiable grounds, the defendant did not enlist in the military for more than three days from the date of enlistment.

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 Acts and subordinate statutes to a written complaint, etc. or a written request for investigation into non-detention;

1. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment under Article 88(1) of the pertinent Act on criminal facts are the following: the Defendant, as the believers of D religious organizations, refused to enlist in the military according to his religious belief and conscience; thus, the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

The argument is asserted.

The freedom of conscience realization is a relative freedom that can be restricted by law in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution if there is a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction.

Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen. Thus, if the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not ensured, the dignity and value as a human being cannot be guaranteed.

Military service is ultimately aimed at guaranteeing dignity and value as a human being of all citizens.

It cannot be readily concluded that the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests.

Even if the Defendant’s freedom of conscience is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the benefit of the above constitutional legal interest, it is a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). In addition, conscientious objectors are entitled to such restrictions.