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

Punishment of the crime

No person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active service shall enlist in the military without justifiable grounds within three days from the date of enlistment.

On November 10, 2013, the Defendant, despite having received a notice of enlistment in the military unit, which was written in the name of the director of the Busan regional military manpower office as “1, December 3, 2013” and “102 supplementary unit,” did not enlist in the military on December 6, 2013, on the ground that he was a religious believers of a religious organization called “D religious organization”, on the ground that he was a religious believers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act to refuse enlistment in accordance with a religious belief.

However, with respect to 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 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court ruled that conscientious objection based on conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision, and that even from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). The Defendant’s above assertion is difficult to accept as a present contrary to the Constitutional Court’s decision and the purport of the Supreme Court’s decision.