Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person in active duty service.

On December 6, 2012, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Daejeon District Military Manpower Office in the Daejeon-gu Daejeon District Military Manpower Office on December 32, 2012, and even though three days have elapsed from the date of enlistment, the Defendant failed to enlist without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

1. Enlistment notice;

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

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts

1. The Defendant’s act refusing to enlist in the army according to the religious conscience, which is the key point of the assertion, constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, since it is the right to guarantee the freedom of conscience under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 19 of the Constitution.

2. As to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution that provides for the freedom of conscience (see Constitutional Court Order 2002HunGa1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the above provision, and even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a member, it does not derive the right to be exempt from the application of the above provision to conscientious objectors pursuant to the conscience, and presented a recommendation by the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Rights.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it has been decided that it does not have any legal binding force.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187 Decided November 29, 2007, etc.). Defendant’s status is the same.