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 subject to enlistment in active duty time reserve service.

On July 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s house of Gyeonggi-gun B on July 10, 2012, the Defendant’s father, through the Defendant’s father on August 21, 2012, “be enlisted in the army according to the 306 Supplementary Military Manpower Branch Office located in the Dong-si of the Republic of Korea on August 21, 2012; and (b) on the sole ground that he is C, the Defendant did not enter the army on August 24, 2012, which was three

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement of accusation, accusation, and accusers against those who violate the Military Service Act;

1. Notice of enlistment in active duty service and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written inquiries about registered mail;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act does not constitute a crime on grounds of “justifiable cause” under the Military Service Act, since the Defendant, as C believers, refused military service according to the freedom of religion and conscience.

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 Defendant’s above assertion does not constitute “justifiable cause” as prescribed by the current Constitution and the Military Service Act, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.