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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a Jehovah’s Witness.

On July 17, 2016, from the defendant's house located in Seopopo City C and 105 Dong 306 to August 14:00, 2016, the defendant received the notice of call under the name of the director of the Jeju regional military manpower office to enlist in the 31st group located in the north-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and confirmed the date of call and did not enlist without justifiable grounds, even if three days have elapsed from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to serve in active duty service, a written confirmation of enlistment notice, confirmation of e-mail enlistment notice, and notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts

1. The Defendant asserted that he refused to enlist in the army according to his religious conscience as a new witness, which constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. The duty of military service, one of the citizens’ duty of national defense under Article 39(1) of the Constitution, is the most fundamental requirement for the existence of a community, and ultimately, is to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings. Thus, when the freedom of conscience realization conflicts with such duty of military service, it may be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and such restriction is a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3795, Jul. 12, 2007; etc.). It is a violation of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act without granting conscientious objectors an opportunity to exempt military service or to alternative military service.

As to ‘civil and political rights’ is not construed as contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Supreme Court Decision 27 December 27, 2007.