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

Punishment of the crime

As C, the Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On May 21, 2012, the Defendant directly received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi Northern District Military Manpower Branch Office in the Gyeonggi-do Military Manpower Branch Office on June 26, 2012, 102, “to be enlisted in the 102 Supplementary Zone located in Gangwon-si on June 26, 2012 at the Defendant’s residence located in Yangju-si, Yangju-si, 101 Dong 804, but failed to enlist, without justifiable grounds, until June 29, 2012 after

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Accusation against violators of the Military Service Act;

1. A written accusation;

1. Notice of enlistment in active duty service (the second order of June);

1. Status of enlistment notice;

1. The name group of those who notify the enlistment;

1. Notices sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. Investigation report (general) - Application of Acts and subordinate statutes obtained for enlistment in active duty service;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Article of the Criminal Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s refusal to serve in the military according to the freedom of religion and conscience is not a crime due to “justifiable cause” under the Military Service Act.

However, the current law does not exempt a person who refuses enlistment in active service on account of religious belief or conscience, or allow a person who refuses enlistment in active service from the duty of military service, or allow a person who refuses enlistment in pure private sector to substitute for performing the duty of military service.

In addition, since there has not yet been a national consensus on permitting conscientious objection or introducing the alternative military service system according to religious belief or conscience, it cannot be deemed that the legislator’s decision that does not allow such exceptions is clearly unconstitutional.

Ultimately, the above argument by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not a “justifiable cause” under the interpretation of the current Constitution and the Military Service Act, and thus, the above argument by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.