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 in active duty service.

On March 11, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of the Incheon Gyeonggi-si Office to enlistment as an association of 25 in the south-si on May 4, 2015 through her mother C at the Defendant’s house located in Yasan-si B apartment operation 202 on May 4, 2015, but did not, without justifiable grounds, enlist within three days from the date of enlistment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Act on the Military Service Act argues that since the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military according to his religious conscience as a witness with leisure and faith, the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

The duty of military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the national security should be more serious than any value in the situation of inter-Korean confrontation. Thus, the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be said to be superior to the above constitutional legal interests and national security. Therefore, conscientious objection according to the Defendant’s religious conscience cannot be deemed to constitute justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that there is conflict between a judge's conscience as a judge and an individual's conscience.

In a personal position to agree with the introduction of the alternative service system, however, our security situation arising from the inter-Korean substitution has to comply with the current law as a judge who is not an individual before all complementary devices for the introduction of the alternative service system are prepared (in the present situation, it is not easy for the Constitutional Court to make a decision of unconstitutionality on Article 88 (1) 1 of the Military Service Act in the same reason.

I am.