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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a new witness to women in nursing and is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On November 10, 2015, the Defendant’s house located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 401 Dong 1405, and the “to be enlisted in active duty service at the Seosan Army Training Center located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and the “to be enlisted in active duty service” did not receive the notice of enlistment under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration in the name of the Defendant C through the mother of the Defendant, but did not, without good cause, enlist within three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Accusation against those who violate the Military Service Act (such as evading enlistment);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a copy of confirmation;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s refusal of enlistment in active duty service according to a religious conscience as “novah Witness” is a new witness. Since such right to refuse enlistment in active duty service is guaranteed by the Constitution, the Defendant’s refusal of enlistment in active duty service constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant’s conscientious objection based on the defendant’s religious conscience constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965 delivered on July 15, 2004, etc.). Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant refuses to enlist according to his religious conscience, and as long as the current law does not recognize the alternative return system for conscientious objectors, punishment for the defendant is inevitable.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case according to his religious conscience and that he was the first offender, etc., the same sentence as the order shall be imposed.