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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, “novahovah’s Witness,” was subject to enlistment in active duty service, and on November 10, 2014, received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Seoul regional military manpower office, to the effect that he will be enlisted in the office of the Defendant at the office of the Dongjak-gu Seoul, Dongjak-gu, 105 Dong 305, to December 16, 2014, as a supplement to 102, in the territory of the Sincheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, Seoul, the Defendant did not,

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. A written accusation;

1. To apply a copy of the notification of persons to be enlisted in active service separately, a copy of the list of those to be enlisted in active service, and a copy of the results of postal receipt;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant refused to enlist in active duty service according to one’s religious conscience as a witness. Since the right to conscientious objection is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Defendant asserts that there exists a justifiable reason for refusing enlistment under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

① However, 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 aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings through national security, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, for the above constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of the defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

(b)if any;