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

Punishment of the crime

As a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, the Defendant, upon receipt of a written notice of enlistment in active duty service, did not enlist in the military for a period of three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds. However, on November 2, 2015, the Defendant, on December 14, 2015, sent a notice of enlistment in the military training center in the name of the head of the regional military affairs office in Daegu-gu, Busan District District District Military Affairs Administration to enlistment as a “B”, a e-mail address of the Defendant on December 14, 2015, but did not enlist until December 17, 2015 on the ground of religious belief.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

1. Application of statutes to notification of enlistment in active duty service, and notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the Act on the Military Service Act, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s assertion as “marh’s witness” is a “marh’s witness” and that there exists justifiable reason to refuse enlistment in active duty service according

However, with respect to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court decided 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 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court decided that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the above provision, and that the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member, and that even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Civil Rights proposed recommendations, this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do817, Nov. 29, 2007).