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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, who is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, is at the defendant's house located in Kimhae-si, 310 Dong 206, March 5, 2012.

4. Even though he received a written notice of enlistment in the name of the director general of the regional military manpower office in the 306 supplementary service, he did not enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant, as a new witness, refused to enlist in active duty service according to the conscientious order in accordance with the religious doctrine, and that such reason constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Under the current positive law, there is no exception to alternative enlistment for a person who refuses enlistment in active service on the ground of the freedom of conscience. Under the current positive law, it is difficult to deem that the grounds alleged by the defendant constitute justifiable grounds for refusing enlistment. Moreover, given that there was no national consensus on permitting conscientious objection or introducing the alternative military service system according to conscience, it is difficult to deem that the legislator’s decision that does not allow such exception is clearly contrary to the Constitution.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941 Decided December 27, 2007; Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2002Hun-Ga1 Decided August 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga22, 2009Hun-Ga7, 2009Hun-Ga7, 24, 2010Hun-Ba16, 37, 208Hun-Ba103, 2009Hun-Ba3, 201Hun-Ba16 (combined) Decided August 30, 201. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for less than one year and six months under the current law.