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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is eligible to be called to full-time reserve service.

On February 25, 2013, the Defendant did not enlist on the 13th day of the same month after three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant’s mother received through C a notice of enlistment for full time reserve service in the name of the director of the regional military manpower office in the name of the Daegu Special Metropolitan City, Daegu Special Metropolitan City, to enlist in the office of the Defendant at the office of the Do Governor 201, Dong 201, and from April 9, 2013 to the 50 association located in the north-dong, Daegu Special Metropolitan

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Accusation, enlistment in full-time reserve service, and additional notice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act is a new “D religious organization” and, accordingly, conscientious objection according to its religious doctrine, constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

The Constitutional Court made 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 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The conscientious objection based on conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the foregoing provision. From the provisions of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights presented recommendations to the conscientious objectors.

Even if this 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). Accordingly, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion.