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

Punishment of the crime

From October 16, 2012 to November 14:00 on November 26, 2012, the Defendant was notified by the director of the regional military manpower office in Gwangju Special Metropolitan City, the head of the regional military manpower office in Gwangju Special Metropolitan City, that “to be enlisted in the Army Training Center located in the Geum-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do” in the Defendant’s residence located in the Jeonnam-gun Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant did not enter the army without justifiable grounds for Dindo by the date on which three days have elapsed since

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation or a written accusation;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act, as a believers’ religious believers, refused to enlist in active duty service according to his religious conscience. This asserts that the Defendant is not guilty on the ground that the refusal of military service based on one’s religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is effective as the law of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Constitution, is guaranteed pursuant to Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “International Covenant”).

Article 18(1) of the above International Covenant provides that “any person shall have the right to enjoy the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.” This right includes freedom to hold or accept a religious or faith chosen by himself or jointly with another person, and includes freedom to express his religious or belief by worship, ceremony, event, or missionary work in a public or private manner.” However, a conscientious objector shall be punished as a violation of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act without granting a conscientious objector an exemption from military service or an opportunity for alternative military service.

In short, such an interpretation does not contravene the foregoing international agreement (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941 Decided December 27, 2007). Moreover, conscientious objection based on a religious conscience is stipulated under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.