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 full time reserve service.

On February 13, 2014, the defendant's house located in Jincheon-gun B in the same year.

4. 1. up to 14:00, he did not enlist without justifiable grounds until April 4, 2014, for which three days have passed since the date of enlistment, even though he received a notice of enlistment in the name of the director general of the regional military manpower office having jurisdiction over the 37 resignation group located in the Chungcheongnam-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the purport that "justifiable cause" exists for failure to enlist, but the other facts stated in the facts charged are recognized)

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The notice sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to “a plan for notifying enlistment in active service and a list of eligible persons,” “an enlistment notice, delivery certificate, e-mail, domestic registration inquiry, etc.”

1. Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Although the Defendant asserts that he refused enlistment according to a religious conscience and that such refusal ought to be deemed to have justifiable grounds, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, etc.). “Justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is, in principle, premised on the existence of an abstract duty of military service and the confirmation of the performance of such duty itself. However, the grounds that justify the non-performance of the duty of military service specified by the decision of the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, etc., i.e., reasons that are not attributable to the non-performance of such duty

It is difficult to view that Defendant’s refusal to enlist in accordance with the order of conscience to protect the personal identity formed by himself in accordance with his religious doctrine constitutes such a cause.

It is a firm precedent of the Supreme Court that refusal of enlistment on the ground of conscientious decision does not constitute "justifiable cause".

(C) the other hand.