The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

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

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 11:27 December 2, 2017, was issued a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Daegu-do regional military manpower office to enlistment in the second group on December 26, 2017 at the residence of the Defendant located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and to enlistment in the second group on December 26, 2017, but did not enlist

2. As the Defendant alleged as “C” and refused to enlist in active service according to religious conscience, there is “justifiable cause” under the main sentence of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

3. Determination

A. uniformly compelling conscientious objectors to perform the duty of military service and imposing sanctions, such as criminal punishment against nonperformance, is unreasonable in light of the constitutional guarantee system and overall legal order, including the freedom of conscience, and is also contrary to the spirit of free democracy, i.e., tolerance and tolerance of the minority.

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

A defendant who asserts conscientious objection can prove the absence of a genuine conscience by presenting prima facie evidence that he is imminent, specific, that his value of existence as a human being is destroyed if he does not act accordingly, and that his conscience is devout, firm, and sincere. A prosecutor can prove the absence of a genuine conscience by impeachmenting the credibility of materials presented.

At least, it is possible for a prosecutor to prove that there is no justifiable reason to prove that the conscientious objector has no justifiable reason.

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

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles.