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

Punishment of the crime

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

On November 12, 2015, the Defendant did not enlist in the military service by not later than three days after the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds, even though he received a muster notice under the name of the Administrator of the Military Affairs Administration of Daejeon, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Daejeon-si, to convene up to December 22, 2015 from the Defendant’s residence located in Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Seoul, to the extent that he would convene up to the 102 supplement in the Eup located in the

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on accusation against persons evading military service;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant, who is a new witness to women and children, refused enlistment in active duty service in accordance with the religious doctrine and thus, refused enlistment in active duty service according to the order of conscience, and there is justifiable reason for refusal to enlistment.

2. We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion for the following reasons.

A. The Constitutional Court made a decision that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing a person evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga 22, 2009Hun-Ga 7, 24, 2010Hun-Ga 16, 37, 208Hun-Ba 103, 209Hun-Ba 3, 2011 (Joint)). B. Military service duty is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all the people through national security, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, even if the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the sake of the above constitutional legal interests, this is a legitimate restriction that is permitted by the board of judges, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do7254, Jul. 26, 2014).

Military service is exempted for conscientious objectors.