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 subject to enlistment in active service.

On November 5, 2014, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Daejeon-nam Military Manpower Office to enlist in the 102 supplementary unit located in Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do as of December 16, 2014 at the Defendant’s residence, and did not enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. A certificate of enlistment in active duty service and receipt of enlistment notice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing military register inquiry;

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

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant, who is a new witness to women with friendship, refused enlistment in active duty service according to the order of conscience in accordance with the religious doctrine, and thus, there is justifiable reason to refuse enlistment.

2. Determination ① 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 Decision 2008Hun-Ga22, 2009Hun-Ga7, 24, 2010Hun-Ga16, 37, 2008Hun-Ba103, 209Hun-Ba3, 2011Hun-Ba16, etc.). ② Military service duty is ultimately to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens through national security, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests. Accordingly, for the purpose of protecting the constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

Even if such restriction is permitted under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). 3) The exemption of conscientious objectors from the duty of military service or the absence of alternative military service system against conscientious objectors cannot be evaluated as a violation of the bylaws, and the introduction of the alternative military service system is broad to the legislative parties of the member country.