beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a new witness to be enlisted in active duty service.
On August 11, 2014, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment under the name of the director of the Busan regional military manpower office to enlist in the Army Training Center located in the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government on August 15, 2014, and on October 20, 2014, the Defendant failed to enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation or a written accusation;
1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on criminal facts under the main sentence of Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act concerning the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel are asserting to the effect that the refusal of enlistment in accordance with a religious belief constitutes “justifiable cause” as stipulated under the exception of punishment under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.
However, with respect to conscientious objection, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court ruled that conscientious objection based on conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the foregoing provision, and that even from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which a country is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right to be exempt from the application of the foregoing provision is not derived (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). The defendant’s above assertion is difficult to accept as of the present point contrary to the Constitutional Court’s decision and the purport of the Supreme Court’s decision