Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person in active duty service.

On December 15, 2017, the Defendant received a written notice of enlistment under the name of the head of the Seoul Regional Military Affairs Administration, and did not enlist until January 25, 2018, in the Seoul Military Manpower Administration Office located on 43-gil 13-gil of the Seoul Military Manpower Administration around December 15, 2017, and “be enlisted in the 35 Army Association on January 23, 2018.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. B written statements;

1. Register of defendants;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the receipt of enlistment notice and notification sent to the Military Manpower Administration;

1. As the Defendant’s assertion on criminal facts against the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 88(1) of the pertinent Act, as the C religious organization’s believers refused to enlist in active duty service according to religious conscience, there exists “justifiable cause”, which is an exception to Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, as a reason for exception under Article 88(1).

The argument is asserted.

However, with respect to conscientious objection based on conscience, the Constitutional Court does not infringe on the freedom of conscience under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, and it is difficult to deem that the right to refuse military service is immediately recognized or the legal binding force on conscientious objection is established in accordance with the international rules on the civil political rights in which Korea joined April 10, 190. International human rights treaties that explicitly recognized the right to refuse military service do not still exist, and even if the right to refuse military service is guaranteed in some countries such as Europe, international customary law on the guarantee of the right to conscientious objection has been established globally.

Therefore, since conscientious objection cannot be accepted in Korea as an generally accepted international law, it cannot be said that it does not violate Article 6(1) of the Constitution, which declares the principle of respect for international law, even if conscientious objectors are subject to criminal punishment pursuant to the above legal provision (see Constitutional Court Decision 201Do899, Aug. 30, 201).