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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, on October 23, 2014, received a muster notice under the name of the director of the Busan regional military manpower office to the effect that "be enlisted in the office located in Geum-gu, Busan and on November 24, 2014, to the 53 team located in the Busan regional military manpower department," but did not respond to the call within three days from the date of the call without good cause.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written accusation and accompanying documents (Nos. 1 through 4);

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of criminal facts under Article 88(1)2 of the relevant Act

1. The Defendant asserted that he is a new witness of women’s nursing, and thus, was refused to enlist in active duty service according to the order of conscience in accordance with his religious doctrine, and there is a justifiable reason to refuse enlistment.

2. As to the so-called conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court made 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 foregoing provision; even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a member, the right to be exempted from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived, and the United Nations Commission on ICCPR recommendation was presented.

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.). Therefore, the aforementioned grounds asserted by the Defendant are not the justifiable grounds for refusal of enlistment, and thus, the above assertion is accepted.