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 in active duty service.

On September 28, 2017, the Defendant did not enlist until November 9, 2017, when he received a notice of enlistment in the military training center under the name of the head of the Gyeonggi-do North Korean Branch Office to enlistment in the Army Training Center until November 6, 2017, and without justifiable grounds, after serving the notice of enlistment in the military on September 9, 2017, which was three days after the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation and a written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notify enlistment in active duty service;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts, Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and the Defendant’s assertion on the sentence of imprisonment, the Defendant, as “D religious organization”, rejected enlistment in active duty service according to religious conscience. Since such right to refuse military service is guaranteed by the Constitution, the Defendant’s refusal of enlistment in active duty service constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

With respect to the so-called “justifiable objection to military service 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 Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court decided that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the above provision. From the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived from the provision of Article 18 of the “Rules on Civil and Political Rights,” and that even if E organization presented a recommendation, this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941, Dec. 27, 2007).