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

Punishment of the crime

A person who has received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service shall enlist within three days from the date of enlistment.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant directly received a written notice of enlistment under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of Gyeong-nam District Office to enlistment from around November 21, 2015, the Defendant did not comply with the call without justifiable grounds until three days after the date of call, in the Defendant’s residence located in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and as up to December 8, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. It is recognized that the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act on criminal facts is an initial criminal without any previous criminal record, etc.

However, the crime of this case is that the defendant was notified of enlistment in active service and did not enlist in the military within three days from the date of entering the military without any justifiable reason, and the crime of this case is not weak, and the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military itself is acknowledged, but there is a justifiable reason for his act.

As consistently asserted, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that there is a high risk of recidivism, and the age, sex and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances of the sentencing specified in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant refuses military service with a firm religious conscience, and in light of the international rules and the decisions of the UN Convention on the Freedom of Freedom, etc., the Defendant’s objection to military service constitutes “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and thus, the Defendant should be acquitted.

2. The “justifiable cause” of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, is, in principle, premised on the existence of abstract military service and the confirmation of the performance of the duty itself. However, the nonperformance of the duty of military service specified by the decision of the head of the Military Affairs Administration, etc. is justified.