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

Punishment of the crime

On August 2, 2013, the Defendant received a notice from the director of the regional military manpower office in the name of Gwangju-nam regional military manpower office to enlist in the army in the 31st company located in Chungcheongnam-dong, Gwangju-gu on September 24, 2013 from the Defendant’s house located in Jeonnam-gun, Gwangju-do, and did not enlist in the army without justifiable grounds until September 27, 2013 after three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. An annual list of persons who have not been drafted;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes by delivery or inquiry of registered mail;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 88 (1) 1 of the relevant Act on criminal facts

1. The Defendant, as a believers of D religious organization, refused to enlist in the military according to his conscience and belief, and the Defendant’s assertion that such reason for refusal of military service constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. However, with respect to the so-called conscientious objection, 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 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, and even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Korea is a member, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived from the right to be exempt from conscientious objectors according to that provision, and presented a recommendation by the United Nations Commission on Freedom.

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.). Accordingly, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.