beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service with a religious organization B.
The Defendant, at around 11:43 on October 27, 2017, at the office of the Defendant’s house located in Yansan-si, Jeonsan-si, the Defendant did not, without justifiable grounds, enlist in the military by no later than three days after the date of enlistment, on the ground that the her mother’s receipt of a written enlistment notice to enlistment in the Army Training Center located in the Sinsan-si, Seosan-si, Seosan-si from D to November 27, 2017, violates the doctrine of sexual intercourse taught by B religious organizations and aggression.
2. Determination
A. According to the relevant legal doctrine and conscience, conscientious objection refers to an act of refusing to perform the duty of military service accompanied by arms or military training on the grounds of a conscientious decision made on the grounds of a religious, ethical, moral, and philosophical motive or similar motive. Since conscientious objectors are unable to perform the duty of military service accompanied by arms or military training and performance of the duty of military service is destroyed by themselves by the value of existence as a human being, then refusing to perform the duty of military service. In that sense, uniformly compelling conscientious objectors to perform the duty of military service and imposing sanctions, such as criminal punishment against nonperformance is unreasonable in light of the constitutional guarantee system and overall legal order, including the freedom of conscience, and is contrary to the spirit of free democracy, i.e., tolerance and po
Therefore, if a genuine conscience is conscientious objection, such objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.
The fact that there is no justifiable reason is a constituent element of crime, so the prosecutor must prove the fact that the defendant who asserts conscientious objection due to the nature of proof of non-existence, is in accordance with the imminent, specific conscience that the value of existence as a human being will be destroyed if he does not act accordingly, and that such conscience is devout, firm, and sincere.