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

Punishment of the crime

A person who has received a notice of call-up for social work personnel shall not comply with the call-up within three days from the call-up without a justifiable reason.

Nevertheless, on July 21, 2014, the Defendant received a written notice of convening a social work personnel call from the Daegu Northern District Military Manpower Office to enlistment in 50 company units located in Daegu North-gu on September 14, 2014 on September 1, 2014, but did not respond to the call for three days from the said call call for religious reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning call-up for social work personnel and call-up, list of persons subject to call-up, registration of persons subject to draft physical

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)2 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act of refusing enlistment according to a strong religious conscience constitutes a right to guarantee the freedom of conscience under Article 18 of the International Covenant and Article 19 of the Constitution, and that such act constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

On the other hand, Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen, and if national security is not achieved because such duty of military service is not fulfilled properly, it is not possible to guarantee the dignity and value as human beings.

Therefore, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the defendant's freedom of conscience is more superior to the above constitutional legal interests.

As a result, for the above constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of a defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

This is a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, etc.). Defendant’s act is an act.