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 to public interest service personnel in B.

On March 18, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of call-up to public duty personnel service under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do Military Manpower Branch Office, to enlistment in the Army Training Center located in the Gyeonggi-do Musan-si on April 14:00 on March 18, 2013, and did not comply with the call-up without justifiable grounds until three days after the call-up.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing convening 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 the Defendant’s refusal of enlistment according to his religious belief constitutes “justifiable cause” as provided by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, with respect to conscientious objection based on 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 held that conscientious objection based on conscience does 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 in 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 above Constitutional Court decision and the purport of the Supreme Court decision.

The reason for sentencing is the defendant.