logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.12.16 2014고단1391
병역법위반
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person in active duty service.

On July 16, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Chungcheong Military Manpower Administration to enlistment in the Defendant’s house located in Jincheon-gun B, 101 Dong 702 from September 2, 2014 to 14:00 on September 2, 2014.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not enlist without justifiable grounds on the ground of conscientious objection until September 5, 2014, for which three days have passed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of the notice of enlistment in active duty service, a written notice of enlistment in active duty service, a domestic registered mail inquiry, or military register inquiry;

1. Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on Criminal Crimes provides that the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military is against a fact or religious reason, and thus, there exists "justifiable cause" as provided by Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act. However, "justifiable cause" as provided by Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act is, in principle, premised on the existence of abstract military service and the confirmation of its performance. However, the reason that can 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-performance of the military service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5365, Dec. 26, 2003). Accordingly, refusal of military service according to a religious faith or conscience cannot be deemed to constitute "justifiable cause" as provided by Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

arrow