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 to be enlisted in active duty service, and if he receives a notice of enlistment, he must enter the military within three days from the date of enlistment. On April 4, 2014, the defendant received a notice of enlistment under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office to enlistment as the Army Training Center by May 12, 2014 through the defendant's e-mail (C), but did not enter the military within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Article 88(1)1 of the Military Service Act applicable to facts constituting a crime subject to the application of a written confirmation of enlistment in active duty service and a written confirmation of enlistment notice: The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion that the refusal of enlistment in the instant case is based on his religious belief, which is a new witness, and is based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Convention No. 1007, which came into force against the Republic of Korea on July 10, 1990, the Convention No. 1007, which entered into force on July 10, 1990, and the freedom of conscience recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution. Thus, the Defendant asserts that there exists “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, but the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the legal interests and interests of the same as the duty of military service, thereby restricting the Defendant’s freedom of conscience pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

Even if such restriction is a justifiable restriction permitted under the Constitution (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004), and Article 18 of the Military Service Act cannot be seen as deriving the right to exceptional exemption from application of the penal provisions of the same Act. Thus, conscientious objection based on conscience cannot be deemed as constituting “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7981 Decided October 15, 2009). The above assertion cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant himself recognizes all the facts of the crime, and the fact that he has no previous record is considered in favor of him, and other factors are considered.