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

Punishment of the crime

A person who has received a notice of enlistment in active service shall comply with the call within three days from the date of enlistment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around May 29, 2013, delivered a notice of enlistment in active service under the name of the director of the Incheon Gyeonggi-do regional military manpower office to the Army Training Center located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do on July 15, 2013 from the Defendant’s house located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon to enlist in the Army Training Center on July 15, 2013, but did not enlist until July 18, 2013 after three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. In cases of domestic registration/exponing mail;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing military register inquiry;

1. The grounds for determining the Defendant’s assertion and sentencing as to criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act regarding criminal facts and the Defendant alleged that conscientious objection constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act. As such, the duty of military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as a human being. As such, the freedom of conscience cannot be deemed as superior value without any restriction. Thus, the State’s criminal punishment against so-called conscientious objectors in accordance with the reasonable legislative discretion violates Articles 10, 19, and 37(2) of the Constitution, thereby unfairly infringing on the freedom of conscience.

Article 6(1) of the Constitution or Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot be deemed as contrary to Article 6(1) of the Constitution, and such objection does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941 Decided December 27, 2007, etc.). Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

In relation to sentencing, the defendant, as a believers of "D religious organization", has reached a challenge to enlistment in accordance with the belief of the religious doctrine in the above religion.