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 subject to a call for social service personnel.

On September 10, 2015, the Defendant directly received a written notice of convening a social service personnel under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of Daejeon Chungcheongnam-gu, Daejeon to call at the Yancheon-gu post office located in Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-do on November 2, 2015, and did not comply with the call within three days from the date of the said lawsuit, without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant directly received the notice of convening a social service personnel under the name of the head of the Military Affairs Administration of Daejeon-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A written statement of the accuser;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes notifying the convocation of social service personnel;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion on criminal facts under Article 88 (1) 2 of the Military Service Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant, who is a new witness to women and children, refused enlistment in active duty service in accordance with the religious doctrine and thus, refused enlistment in active duty service according to the order of conscience, and there is justifiable reason for refusal to enlistment.

2. We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion for the following reasons.

A. The Constitutional Court made a decision that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing a person evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga 22, 2009Hun-Ga 7, 24, 2010Hun-Ga 16, 37, 208Hun-Ba 103, 209Hun-Ba 3, 2011 (Joint)). B. Military service duty is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all the people through national security, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is superior to the above constitutional legal interests. Thus, even if the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the sake of the above constitutional legal interests, this is a legitimate restriction that is permitted by the board of judges, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do7254, Jul. 26, 2014).

It does not exempt conscientious objectors from military service or have a alternative service system.