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 in active duty service.

From May 20, 2014 to July 29, 2014, the Defendant did not, without good cause, enlist until August 1, 2014, on the ground that he was sent a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Daegu Gyeong-do regional military manpower office to enlistment in the 306 supplementary unit located in the Gyeonggi-gu regional military manpower office located in the Dong-si, Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do military manpower office, to which he was assigned, but did not, undergo the enlistment without justifiable reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complainant's written statement, the domestic registry office, and the domestic post office;

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 conscientious objection pursuant to the religious doctrine constitutes “justifiable cause” under 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.