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

Punishment of the crime

On September 20, 201, the Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active service after being judged to be subject to Grade III active service.

A person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active service shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment, except in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, on May 15, 2013, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service from the director of the Daegu High Military Manpower Office to enlistment in the Daegu High Military Manpower Office on June 25, 2013 at the Daegu High Military Manpower Office located in 90, Jung-gu, Daegu High Military Manpower Office on May 15, 2013, in accordance with the 306 Supplementarytion located in Yongsan-dong, Jung-gu, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant evaded enlistment in active duty service without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation and a written notice of enlistment in active duty service;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act is a new religious organization “B religious organization” and thus, conscientious objection according to that religious doctrine constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

The Constitutional Court made 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 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The conscientious objection based on conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the foregoing provision. From the provisions of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights presented recommendations to the conscientious objectors.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187 Decided November 29, 2007.