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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a new witness in women's family and is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

Even though the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-do, to the 31st group training center located in Jeonsung-gun on August 13, 2014, to the effect that the Defendant will enlist in the active duty service at the Defendant’s house located in Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, and until September 23, 2014, the Defendant failed to enlist until September 26, 2014, without justifiable grounds.

40 80 80

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A certificate of electronic delivery of a notice of enlistment in active duty service, and a written notification of enlistment in active duty service;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 88(1)1 of the Criminal Act related to criminal facts reveals that the Defendant, as a new witness, refused enlistment in active duty service according to the order of conscience in accordance with the religious doctrine, and such reason for refusal constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, under the current positive law that does not provide for special cases that can substitute enlistment for those who refuse enlistment in active service on grounds of religious belief under the Military Service Act, the aforementioned grounds alleged by the Defendant do not constitute justifiable grounds for refusal of enlistment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1759, Nov. 24, 201; Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga22, 2009Hun-Ga7, 209Hun-Ga7, 24, 2010Hun-Ga16, 37, 208Hun-Ba103, 209Hun-Ba3, 2011Hun-Ba16, etc.). Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant is difficult to accept.