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 subject to class III enlistment in active duty service.

On August 11, 2013, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-do, to enlistment in the 31st unit located in the 31st unit by his e-mail, and did not enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of statutes governing the challenge of enlistment in active duty service;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent statutory provisions of the Military Service Act, as a religious believers of the religious organization B, refused to enlist in active duty service according to his religious conscience. The Defendant asserts that, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the refusal of the duty of military service based on conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and Article 19 of the Constitution, which has the same effect as that of the Republic of Korea, is guaranteed by Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “International Covenant”) and is thus guaranteed by the freedom of conscience under Article 18(1) of the Constitution.

Article 18(1) of the above International Covenant provides that “any person shall have the right to enjoy the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.” This right includes freedom to hold or accept a religious or faith chosen by himself or jointly with another person, and includes freedom to express his religious or belief by worship, ceremony, event, or missionary work in a public or private manner.” However, a conscientious objector shall be punished as a violation of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act without granting a conscientious objector an exemption from military service or an opportunity for alternative military service.

In short, such an interpretation does not contravene the foregoing international agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941, Dec. 27, 2007). Moreover, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act provides that conscientious objection based on a religious conscience.