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 eligible for call-up of public interest service personnel in BB religious organization. On May 10, 2013, at the Defendant’s house located in Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, Gamba 201, the Defendant did not respond to call-up by June 2, 2013, when he received a notice of call-up of public interest service personnel under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi Northern District Military Manpower Branch Office, and three days after the call-up from the call-up without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the call of public duty personnel;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)2 of the pertinent Act asserts that: (a) the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military according to his religious belief constitutes “justifiable cause” as stipulated under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, with respect to conscientious objection according to conscience, the Constitutional Court decided 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 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court did not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision, and even from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempted from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Civil and Political Rights presented recommendations.

Even if this does not have any legal binding force, (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). The Defendant’s above assertion is difficult to accept as present against the Constitutional Court’s decision and the purport of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The defendant is given a notice for sentencing again.