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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a Jehovah’s Witness. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment from the Administrator of the Military Affairs Administration of the Busan District Office by November 23, 2015, to enter the army according to the Army Training Center’s enlistment examination in the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Yan-si by November 23, 2015. However, the Defendant did not enter the army even after three days from the date on which he received the notice of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a written notification of enlistment in active duty service, a copy of the enlistment notification and a copy of the status of notification, and a copy of notification;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act, the Defendant asserts that “Ihovah’s Witness,” as a new witness, refused enlistment according to conscience based on gender and conscience, and that this constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, has been prepared to specify the duty of national defense, which is the most fundamental duty of the people, and if such duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not guaranteed, it cannot be guaranteed the dignity and value as human beings.

Therefore, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be said to be superior to the above constitutional legal interests.

Therefore, even if the freedom of conscience of a defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the above constitutional legal interests, it would be a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965 delivered on July 15, 2004, etc.). Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant against such legal principles is rejected.