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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as a person eligible for a call for social work personnel service, failed to respond to a call for call of social work personnel service under the name of the director of the Seoul regional military manpower office in order to respond to the call for call of social work personnel service in the name of the Defendant who was sent a notice of call of call of call of call to social work personnel service in the name of the Defendant who was sent the call of call of call of call of call of call of social work personnel service in the name of the Seoul regional military manpower office as of December 12, 2013, after three days from the call of call of call of call of call of social work personnel service,

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement that is written by an accuser;

1. Written accusation prepared by the director of the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of notice of call for education, list of eligible persons, and delivery and inquiry [No. 3 to 5] of call for education;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)2 of the relevant Act on the Military Service Act is a religious organization’s believers and did not comply with the call-up of a social work personnel according to religious conscience. This is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and thus constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act. However, although the duty of military service based on the duty of national defense, which is a citizen’s constitutional duty, ultimately guarantees the dignity and value of all citizens, and the Defendant’s freedom of conscience cannot be said to be superior value to the above constitutional legal interests, the Defendant’s freedom of conscience is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2)

It is reasonable to view this as a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004). Accordingly, the defendant's refusal to call the call of this case cannot be deemed as a justifiable cause under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act, and the above assertion is rejected.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows.