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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is “B”.

On July 11, 2013, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Daegu regional military manpower office to enlist in the 306 supplementary unit located in the Dong-dong of the Government of Gyeonggi-si on August 6, 2013, and did not, without justifiable grounds, enlist within the period of three days from the date of enlistment, in the Defendant’s residence in Daegu-gun C Apartment 8 Dong 101, Daegu-si, Daegu-si, the mother, and through D, the mother.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the filing of an accusation and enlistment notice;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act is “B” and asserts that conscientious objection according to that religious doctrine constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

The Constitutional Court made a decision 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, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The conscientious objection based on conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the foregoing provision. From the provisions of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights presented recommendations to the conscientious objectors.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Accordingly, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion.