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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person in active duty service.

On June 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sent the notice of enlistment in the military training center in the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi Military Manpower Office on July 29, 2013 to the Army Training Center located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, through e-mail from the Defendant’s office located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, to the Army Training Center; and (b) failed to enlist without justifiable grounds by the day after three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act is a new “D religious organization” and, accordingly, conscientious objection according to its religious doctrine, constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

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 of punishment under the foregoing provision. From the provisions of 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, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights presented recommendations to the conscientious objectors.

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, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion.