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

Punishment of the crime

On November 21, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-do regional military manpower office to enlistment in the 35 company located in the 35 company unit located in the 35 company located in the 507 company from the defendant's house located in Young-gu, Suwon-si B and 3. 507 on December 23, 2014, but did not enlist without justifiable reasons by the date three days have elapsed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the accuser or accuser;

1. Reading on the military register;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on resident registration, certified copy or abstract, or printed matter by registered mail;

1. The Defendant asserts that the judgment on the Defendant’s argument regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, since the Defendant refused to enlist in active service according to religious conscience.

As to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court decided 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 Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court held that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision, and the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member, and presented recommendations by the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Law.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it has been decided that it does not have any legal binding force.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187 Decided November 29, 2007, etc.). The above assertion by the defendant is inconsistent with the above decision of the Constitutional Court and the purport of the decision of the Supreme Court, and cannot be accepted.