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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, on July 31, 2015, received a notice of enlistment in active service under the name of the head of the Seoul Regional Military Affairs Administration to enlistment in the Army Training Center on August 31, 2015, the date of enlistment at the Defendant’s residence located in Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but failed to enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement on accusation against any offender of the Military Service Act and a written accusation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to notification of enlistment in active duty service (full-time reserve service);

1. As to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Article of the Military Service Act, the Defendant refused enlistment according to a religious conscience as a new witness, which is a right recognized pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As such, the Defendant asserts that conscientious objection constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the so-called conscientious objection does not constitute justifiable grounds for exception to punishment under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and that even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived from the provision of Article 18 of the same Act, and that even if the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Freedom proposed a recommendation, this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187, Nov. 29, 2007). Thus, the above assertion by the defendant against the above legal principle is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has no record of being punished by committing a crime until now, and the refusal of enlistment by the defendant is based on religious belief.