logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.01.25 2018고단155
병역법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Those who have received a notice of enlistment in the active duty service of a certified architect shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment unless there is a justifiable reason not to do so;

Nevertheless, on October 27, 2017, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment to enlistment in the Army Training Center located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si on November 27, 2017 at the Defendant’s residence of Goi-si B lending C around October 27, 2017, but failed to enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

2. Determination:

A. The so-called conscientious objection and so-called conscientious objection according to relevant legal doctrine and conscience refer to refusing to perform the duty of military service accompanied by gathering guns or military training on the grounds of conscientious decision formed in religious, ethical, philosophical, or other similar motives.

It is not reasonable in light of the constitutional system of guaranteeing fundamental rights, including the freedom of conscience, and the overall legal order, and also violates the spirit of free democracy such as tolerance and tolerance of minority objectors.

Therefore, if a genuine conscience is to be conscientious objection, such objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018).B.

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, conscience, as the believers of a religious organization, for which the Defendant is unable to perform his duty of military service according to a religious doctrine, is devout, firm, true, and genuine conscience. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in active duty service has justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(1) The mother of a defendant was active as a believers of a D religious organization, and the defendant is under the influence of the mother.

arrow