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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a witness witness in Jehovahovah.

A person who has received a notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment, except in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around October 10, 2013, was issued a notice of enlistment under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in Gwangju-do, to enlistment in the Army Training Center located in the Gani-Eup, Seosan-si from the Defendant’s office located in Naju-si to November 11, 2013, and did not, without justifiable grounds, enlistment within three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation filed against D;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act, the Defendant refused enlistment in active duty service according to a religious conscience as a believers of a religious person, who is a female witness, and the Defendant asserts to the effect that, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Constitution, the refusal of the duty of military service based on conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and Article 19 of the Constitution is guaranteed by the freedom of conscience under Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “International Covenant”), which has the same effect as that of the Republic of Korea, and thus, the refusal of the duty of military service based on conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 8(1) of the said Act, and the Defendant is not guilty.

However, a person who commits a violation of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act without granting conscientious objectors an opportunity to exempt military service or alternative military service.

In short, such an interpretation does not contravene the foregoing international agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941, Dec. 27, 2007). Moreover, it cannot be deemed that conscientious objection based on a religious conscience includes justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

It is expected that the defendant's assertion can be expected (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004).