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

Punishment of the crime

On January 2, 2014, the Defendant, as a person to be enlisted in active duty service, was not enlisted in the Army Training Center located in the Geum-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, from the Defendant’s house located in the Daegu-si, Daegu-si, 102 Dong 501 to February 10, 2014. However, the Defendant, without good cause, received the notice of enlistment in the active duty service under the name of the director general of the Daegu-do regional military manpower office, and was not enlisted until three days after the date of the enlistment without good cause.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the management of written accusation and e-mail addressees;

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 Act is a new “C religious organization” and, accordingly, 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Accordingly, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion.