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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant B, B, B, and around 12:39 on July 21, 2016, at the office of the Defendant located in the Dobong-gu Seoul building, the third floor, and the same year.

9.6. Although the head of the Seoul Regional Military Affairs Administration received a notice of enlistment from his father to enlistment in the army as a supplement to 102, in the case of Chuncheon-si, the head of the Seoul Regional Military Affairs Administration did not enlist on the 9th day of the same month after three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. The gist of the assertion regarding the determination of the change in the judgment regarding criminal facts under Article 88(1)1 of the pertinent Act is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as a believers, refused enlistment in active duty service in accordance with the order of conscience in accordance with the religious doctrine; and (b) conscientious objection based on conscience is a justifiable act consistent with the Constitution and international norms; and (c) thus, the Defendant’s violation of the Military Service Act is not established.

Judgment

Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act that punishs evasion of enlistment does not violate Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ga1, Aug. 26, 2004; Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). In addition, the so-called conscientious objection based on one’s conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for by the exception to punishment under the above provisions of the Military Service Act, and punishing the same does not violate the freedom of conscience under Article 19 of the Constitution.

B. In addition, Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea, the right of conscientious objectors pursuant to conscience to be exempted from the application of the above provisions of the Military Service Act is not derived, and even if the United Nations Commission on Freedom of Rights presents a recommendation, this does not have any legal binding force (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do12346, Nov. 10, 2016). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected as it goes against the Constitutional Court’s decision and the purport of the Supreme Court’s decision.