beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a new witness with women and is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.
The Defendant, around August 20, 2014, sent a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Seoul Military Manpower Office to enlist in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 107 Dong 1102 and 306 supplementary units as of September 30, 2014, and the Defendant did not enlist on October 3, 201 of the same year after three days from the date of enlistment, without justifiable grounds.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A written accusation;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to enlistment in active duty service and registered mail inquiry;
1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on conscientious objection according to the Defendant’s conscience in determining the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, the Health Team, the Constitutional Court rendered 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 an exception to punishment under Article 8(1)1, and even from Article 18 of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” to which the Republic of Korea is a member, the right to be exempt from the application of the said provision is not derived, and even if the United Nations Commission on Freedom’s recommendation was presented, this 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.). Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.