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 in active duty service.

The Defendant, around November 6, 2014, failed to enlist in the military service on December 19, 2014, after receiving a notice of enlistment in the name of the director of the Daejeon District Military Manpower Office at the time of enlistment on December 19, 2014, on December 19, 2014, from the Defendant’s house located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, 314 Dong 1005 to the citizens of the Gyeonggi-do Government, Gyeonggi-do, to the 306 supplementary military service, from the 416 additional military service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. A written enlistment notice;

1. To refer registered mail to registered mail;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the accusation of persons evading military service;

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

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); and (3) the exemption of conscientious objectors from military service or the absence of alternative military service system can be evaluated as a violation of the bylaws.