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

Punishment of the crime

A person subject to enlistment in active duty service who has received a notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment.

Nevertheless, the defendant's house located in Gyeonggi-si B on May 18, 2017 from the Gyeonggi Military Manpower Administration to the Gyeonggi Military Manpower Administration on the same year.

6. By December, 12, the enlistment notice to the Army Training Center was sent to the Army Training Center by the Party C, and the enlistment was not given within three days from the date of enlistment without good cause.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. Notice of additional enlistment in active duty service;

1. Application of statutes to the list of persons delivering written notice of enlistment;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act

1. The Defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military is conscientious objection and “justifiable cause to refuse enlistment”.

2. Determination

A. A. Religious and conscientious freedom is a relative freedom that can be restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution in a case where there exists a superior legal interest that justify such restriction. As such, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen in the present situation where a division is in a decentralization, and as such, if the duty of military service is not properly performed and the national security is not performed, the dignity and value of the people’s human being cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, the Defendant’s freedom of conscience cannot be deemed as superior value to the constitutional legal interest of guaranteeing dignity and value as a human being. Even if the barracks law restricts the Defendant’s religious and conscientious freedom, it is a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7120, Oct. 5, 2009; 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). (b) Since conscientious objection is an generally accepted international law and is not accepted in Korea, it is governed by the instant legal provision.