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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a witness witness in Jehovahovah.

On May 15, 2013, at the defendant's house located in Echeon-si B, the defendant sent a notice of enlistment in active duty service on July 1, 2013 to the Army Training Center located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si on July 1, 2013, and the defendant did not, without justifiable grounds, enlist within three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A written accusation;

1. Domestic registration inquiry;

1. Military register inquiry;

1. Notice of enlistment in active duty service;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the annual list of persons who have not been drafted;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the relevant Act

1. The alleged defendant is a woman and a witness with a good faith and refuses to enlist in the military according to religious conscience, and there is a justifiable reason.

2. 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 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception of punishment under the above provision. The right that conscientious objectors are exempt from the application of the above provision even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, and presented a recommendation by the UNFCCC.

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8187 Decided November 29, 2007, etc.). Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.