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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person in active duty service.

On May 25, 2017, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Busan Regional Military Affairs Administration to enlistment in the Army Training Center, which is located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S. as the dwelling of the Defendant, 1506, and July 3, 2017, the Defendant failed to enlistment for three days after enlistment without justifiable grounds, even though he received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Busan Regional Military Affairs Administration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Notification of additional enlistment in active duty service, list of notified persons, and application of statutes governing the progress of delivery;

1. Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts [Judgment on the defendant's assertion]

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that there exists a “justifiable cause” as stipulated under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, since he refused to enlist in the military according to the freedom of conscience as a “synovah’s Witness.”

2. In this regard, the Supreme Court decided to the effect that the freedom of conscience realization, such as “ conscientious objection”, may be restricted for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution, as well as for other fundamental rights, the Defendant’s freedom of conscience realization cannot be treated as a superior value to the constitutional value of national security, human dignity, etc., which is ultimately protected by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is the applicable law of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do295 delivered on July 15, 2004, etc.). In other words, the Supreme Court has expressed its position that the freedom of conscience realization, such as “ conscientious objection” is not a justifiable reason for a long time.

3. Furthermore, from the standpoint of the interpretation on the freedom of conscience under Article 19 of the Constitution, the restriction on the freedom of conscience realization, such as conscientious objection, can be sufficiently possible as the aforementioned Supreme Court’s legal doctrine.

4. The freedom of conscience under Article 19 of the Constitution of Korea is the freedom of conscience formation and conscientious.