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

Punishment of the crime

On November 9, 2016, the Defendant received a written enlistment notice under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do Military Affairs Administration to enlist in the 37 association new military education unit on December 20, 2016 by registered mail from Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment house, 101 Dong 1202, and did not comply with the enlistment without justifiable grounds by the date on which three days elapsed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Notices sent to the Military Manpower Administration for the preparation of the defendant;

1. Official notices of enlistment and data related to the service thereof;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation and a written accusation;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on Article 88(1)1 of the Military Service Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in active duty service according to a religious conscience is a new witness, and that such refusal to enlist in active duty service constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, since the right to refuse to enlist in active duty service is guaranteed by the Constitution.

As to the so-called “ conscientious objection according to conscience,” 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 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 to punishment under the above provision. From the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived, and even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Covenant proposed recommendations, this does not have any legal binding force (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7497, Dec. 27, 2007).