Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

A defendant shall be subject to enlistment in active duty service and a person who has received a notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment.

Nevertheless, on June 1, 2015, the Defendant evaded the enlistment on the grounds of the Defendant’s religion, even though he received a written notice of enlistment in the active duty service under the name of the director of the Busan Regional Military Manpower Office on July 21, 2015, from the Defendant’s residence located in Ulsan-gu B, 102, 503 Dong-gu, Ulsan-gu, 2015

As a result, the defendant did not enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written accusation (written accusation and notification of enlistment in active duty service);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Article of the Military Service Act is a member of the “nhovah’s Witness” and refused enlistment according to a religious conscience. This is a right recognized pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As such, the Defendant asserts that conscientious objection constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, even from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, the Supreme Court does not have any justifiable reason for the so-called conscientious objection to military service under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and does not derive the right to be exempted from the application of the said provision to conscientious objectors, and presented recommendations by the United Nations Commission on ICCPR.

Even if this is not legally binding, it is not legally binding.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Through legislation, the Defendant’s religious belief, such as the Defendant.