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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as a female witness, is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office to enlist in the military service on up to 102 supplement from the Defendant’s house located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment 509 Dong 702 to June 17, 2014, the Defendant failed to enlist without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

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

1. The Defendant asserted that he is a witness with a good faith and refuses military service based on a religious conscience. As conscientious objection is recognized pursuant to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 19 of the Constitution, conscientious objection constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. The Constitutional Court made a decision 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 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The conscientious objection based on conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, does not derive the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision of the Military Service Act to conscientious objectors according to conscience, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Rights presented recommendations.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.