The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, upon receipt of the enlistment notice from the person subject to enlistment in active duty service, should respond to the enlistment within three days from the date of enlistment, but on October 3, 2016, he did not comply with the call-up without justifiable grounds, even though he directly received the call-up notice under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office to enlist in the Army Training Center located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City as of November 28, 2016 from the Defendant’s house located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City and the Defendant’s house

2. Determination

A. The so-called conscientious objection and so-called conscientious objection mean refusing to perform the duty of military service accompanied by military training or arms on the ground of conscientious decision formed in religious, ethical, moral, philosophical or other similar motives.

It is not reasonable in light of the fundamental rights guarantee system and the overall legal order, including the freedom of conscience, to uniformly compel conscientious objectors to perform the duty of military service and impose sanctions such as criminal punishment against non-performance of the duty of military service, and also violates the spirit of free democracy such as tolerance and tolerance of the minority.

Therefore, if a genuine conscience is to be conscientious objection, such objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018).B.

The defendant stated that the parents, who had suffered family ties, enter the D Religious Organizations, and reported changes in them, and led to the activities of D Religious Organizations.

Since July 2011, the Defendant started the activities of D Religious Organizations from the beginning of the activities of D Religious Organizations, it seems that he was confirmed on January 28, 2012, and thereafter, he was regularly engaged in the activities.

C. Before the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court’s judgment on conscientious objection, the Defendant refused military service on the ground of religious belief.

The defendant's religious belief formation background based on the data submitted by the defendant and the defendant.