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

Punishment of the crime

On November 22, 2016, the Defendant, as a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Daejeon-nam District Military Affairs Administration, to enlistment in the six association new soldiers training unit located in the Jeonwon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Gangwon-do on November 28, 2016 at the third floor office of the bank call center located in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, the Defendant, and failed to enlist without justifiable grounds by no later than three days after the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing a written accusation and a written notice of enlistment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the accused and the defense counsel regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant, as a believers of the E religious organization, refused to enlist in active service according to the order of conscience as stated in its reasoning, and that such grounds for refusal of military service constitute “justifiable cause” as stipulated in the text of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, under the current positive law that does not provide for special cases that can substitute enlistment for those who refuse enlistment in active service on the grounds of religious belief under the Military Service Act, the above reasons asserted by the Defendant do not constitute justifiable grounds for refusal of enlistment.

Since it is interpreted [see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do7941, Dec. 27, 2007; 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; 2008 HunGa22, etc., Supreme Court Decision, Aug. 30, 201], Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel refused to apply for exemption from military service even though the defendant had a family member to support, and the head of the Military Affairs Administration rejected the defendant's application for exemption from military service. Since the above disposition is obvious that the defendant'

The argument is asserted.

However, there is a serious illegality in the refusal disposition of the head of the Military Manpower Administration only with the materials submitted up to now.