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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On March 28, 2016, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s home located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 203 Dong 708, through Dong C, did not enter the military service for the period of three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds, even though he received a notice of enlistment in the military service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. The defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Act on the Military Service Act argues that since the defendant's refusal to enlist according to religious conscience, the defendant's refusal to enlist constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

Military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and national security should be more serious than any value in the situation where two Koreas stand across, and as such, the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests and national security. Therefore, conscientious objection based on the Defendant’s religious conscience cannot be deemed as justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that there is conflict between a judge's conscience as a judge and an individual's conscience.

In a personal position to agree with the introduction of the alternative service system, however, our security situation arising from the inter-Korean substitution has to comply with the current law as a judge who is not an individual before all complementary devices for the introduction of the alternative service system are prepared (in the present situation, it is not easy for the Constitutional Court to make a decision of unconstitutionality on Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act in the same reason.

The Defendant refused enlistment according to religious belief, and thus, fulfilled the duty of military service in the future.