beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
Criminal facts
The Defendant is a person in active duty service.
On June 28, 2013, the Defendant was enlisted in the Defendant’s house located in Songpa-gu Seoul Building 607 Dong 1405 on August 13, 2013 at the Defendant’s house located in Songpa-gu Seoul building 607 Dong 1405, and “Ac religious organization was not enlisted until three days after the date of enlistment on the ground that he was required to comply with the doctrine of “C religious organization” under the name of the director of the Seoul regional military manpower office.
Accordingly, the defendant did not enlist in the military for more than three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;
1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on the Military Service Act, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s refusal of enlistment in active duty service on conscience as a believers of a “C religious organization” constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, but the Constitutional Court rendered 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 2008Hun-Ga2, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court did not constitute “justifiable cause” as the exception to punishment under the above provision, and even from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the above provision is not derived, and presented recommendations to the UNFCCC.
Even if this does not have any legal binding force, it was decided that this does not have any legal binding force.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7902, Sept. 12, 2013). In light of the purport of the foregoing Constitutional Court decision and the Supreme Court decision, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.