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

Punishment of the crime

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

On April 19, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in Gwangju Metropolitan City/Seoul District Military Manpower Office to enlist in the 31st group located in the north-gu Seoul Metropolitan City by May 19, 2015, but failed to enlist without justifiable grounds even three days after the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a certificate of enlistment notification and a list of those to be enlisted;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in active duty service according to a religious conscience is based on the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Constitution and the right to conscientious objection under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. Determination

A. “Justifiable reason” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, is, in principle, premised on the existence of abstract military service and the recognition of its performance. However, it should be deemed that there is a reason that justify the non-performance of the military service specified by the decision of the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, i.e., disease, or any other reason that is not attributable to the non

However, even in cases where a person who has refused to perform a specific duty of military service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and furthermore, even in cases where the right has superior constitutional value to the function of the legislative purpose of the legal provision of this case, if punished by applying the legal provision of this case, it would result in unjust infringement of his constitutional rights.