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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a Jehovah’s Witness Dol. On May 26, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-si Military Manpower Office to enlist in the Army Training Center in the name of the Incheon Gyeonggi-si Office from his office to June 14:00 on June 23, 2014, the Defendant did not, without justifiable grounds, enlist until June 26, 2014 of the same month, for which three days have passed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the additional enlistment notice;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts

1. The Defendant asserted that he is a witness with a good faith and refuses military service based on a religious conscience. As conscientious objection is recognized pursuant to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 19 of the Constitution, conscientious objection constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. The Constitutional Court made 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 provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, does not derive the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision of the Military Service Act to conscientious objectors according to conscience, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Rights presented recommendations.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is acceptable.