beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person subject to separate call-up.
On September 16, 2013, at around 10:41, the Defendant received a notice of convening a public duty personnel call to respond to the convening of the 35g group located in Songcheon-dong, the same Gu, from October 7, 2013, at the office of the Defendant located in Seojin-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul.
Nevertheless, the defendant did not respond to the convocation of the call until October 10, 2013, which is not more than three days from the above list of candidates.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A written accusation;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written accusation, written confirmation of the evasion of enlistment, and public duty personnel call at 8th stage in 2013;
1. The Defendant asserts that conscientious objection according to a religious conscience constitutes justifiable cause under the Military Service Act, which is determined as to the Defendant’s assertion regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)2 of the pertinent Act.
However, the "justifiable cause" of Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, is, in principle, premised on the existence of abstract military service and the confirmation of its performance. However, it should be deemed that there is a justifiable reason to refuse the performance of military service on the other hand, in order to exclude the unconstitutional situation, unless there is a justifiable reason to refuse the performance of military service on the other hand, a person who refuses the performance of specific military service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, even in a case where it is recognized that the right has a superior constitutional value capable of the legislative purpose of Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act, even if the right has been punished by the application of Article 88 (1) of the same Act, it would result in undue infringement of his constitutional right.
On the other hand, however,