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

Punishment of the crime

On May 1, 2011, the Defendant is a person who has become a female witness and has become a new witness of Shhohovah, and has been engaged in religious activities with good faith until now, and is subject to enlistment in active duty service.

The Defendant, at the house of the Defendant located in Seosan-si B, 101 Dong 1003 on November 20, 2015, through her mother C through her mother C, did not enlist in the military by the date on which three days have elapsed from the date of enlistment, on the ground that he violated the doctrine of sexual intercourses taught by the Defendant in the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration in Daejeon-nam District Office, Daejeon to enlist in active duty service on December 22, 2015, under the name of the head of the 102 Supplementary Military Affairs Administration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of receipt of accusation and enlistment notice;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, the Defendant asserts to the effect that there exists a justifiable reason under the main sentence of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act by exercising the right to refuse military service based on religious belief and conscience.

However, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s conscientious objection based on the Defendant’s religious conscience constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). Furthermore, the Defendant’s conscientious objectors shall be punished as a violation of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act without granting conscientious objectors an opportunity to exempt or substitute for military service and is not construed as contrary to the “international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941, Dec. 27, 2007).

The defendant is justified for sentencing.