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

Punishment of the crime

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

On September 5, 2014, through e-mail at the Defendant’s residence located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu B and 402, the Defendant failed to enlist in the army training center located in the Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si on October 13, 2014 without justifiable grounds until three days have passed from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, a written notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration, a management of party copies, and enlistment in active duty service;

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the pertinent Act concerning Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act asserts that the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military according to religious belief and conscience as a witness of the court, and that the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military constitutes "justifiable cause" under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

The freedom of conscience realization is a relative freedom that can be restricted by law in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution if there is a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction.

Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen. Thus, if the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not ensured, the dignity and value as a human being cannot be guaranteed.

Military service is ultimately aimed at guaranteeing dignity and value as a human being of all citizens.

It cannot be readily concluded that the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests.

Even if the defendant's freedom of conscience is restricted in accordance with Article 37 (2) of the Constitution for the above legal interest, it is a legitimate restriction permitted by the Constitution (Supreme Court Decision 7 July 15, 2004).