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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is “B Religious Organization”.

On October 2, 2015, the Defendant was issued a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Military Manpower Administration in the name of the head of the Chungcheongnam-gu Military Manpower Administration, to enter the military training center in the Dong-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, by November 16, 2015, and by November 14:00, 2015.

However, without justifiable grounds, the defendant did not enlist in the military even though the period of three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation filed against E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the notification of enlistment in active duty service, notification of enlistment in active duty service, and receipt thereof;

1. On the part of the Defendant and defense counsel’s argument regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, the gist of the argument is that the Defendant refused to enlist in active duty according to religious conscience. Such conscientious objection is not only guaranteed by the freedom of conscience under the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also can be derived from the generally accepted international laws and regulations.

Therefore, the Defendant’s refusal of military service constitutes “a violation of the Military Service Act” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and thus, the Defendant breached the same.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. “Justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the former Military Service Act should, in principle, be deemed as a cause that is not attributable to a person who committed an act of nonperformance, such as disease, etc., on the premise that the existence of an abstract duty of military service and the recognition of the performance of the duty itself, but that is, a reason that may justify the nonperformance of the duty specified.

However, there is a superior constitutional value that a person who has refused to fulfill a specific obligation is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and further has superior constitutional value that functions as a legislative purpose of the above legal provision.

Even if it is recognized, the above legal provision shall also apply.