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 social work personnel call.

On December 26, 2014, the Defendant received a muster notice under the name of the Director of the Gangwon Military Manpower Office to call from the Defendant’s office located in Chuncheon B, and from January 19, 2015, to the 36th volunteer soldiers of the Army located in the front of the front of the front city, the Defendant did not comply with the said call without justifiable grounds, by the day after three days from the date of call.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Notification of call for education to social work personnel, and application of registered mail statutes;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)2 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act is the “novah’t Witness” and refused enlistment according to a religious belief. The Defendant asserts that such conscientious objection is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by Article 18 of the ICCPR and Article 19 of the Constitution and constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

As to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the above provision, and even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Law presented recommendations to the conscientious objectors.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it has been decided that it does not have any legal binding force.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Along with the foregoing premise, it is prior to the other premise.