Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

A person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service shall not be enlisted within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service on September 30, 2017, to the effect that “to be enlisted in the Army Training Center located in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, on November 20, 2017” through the Green e-mail of the country around September 30, 2017, but failed to enlist within the period of three days from the date of the enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the fact that he did not enlist as stated in the facts charged is recognized);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, written confirmation of the evasion of enlistment, written notification of enlistment in active duty service (subject to enlistment in November, 17), and written notification;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion on the crime does not appear in the army against his religious conscience and thus, the Defendant’s enlistment as a new witness does not appear in the army against his own religious conscience. As such, there exists a justifiable reason as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service

The argument is asserted.

However, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act was prepared to specify the most fundamental duty of national defense, and it seems clear that if the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly and the national security is not performed, the dignity and value as a human being cannot be guaranteed. Thus, the duty of military service ultimately aims to ensure the dignity and value as a human being of all citizens, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, even if the freedom of conscience of the defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the above constitutional legal interests, it is a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do758 delivered on July 15, 2004).