Supreme Court Acquits for the First Time in Case of Active Duty Enlistment Refusal Due to 'Non-Religious Beliefs' (Update)

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has made its first ruling that even if an individual refuses active military enlistment based on personal beliefs such as nonviolence and anti-war, rather than religious beliefs, they should not be punished if the refusal is based on a 'genuine conscience.'

On the 24th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) upheld the lower court's acquittal in the appeal trial of Jeong Mo, who was charged with violating the Military Service Act.

Jeong received a notice for active duty enlistment in October 2017 and was prosecuted for failing to enlist by the enlistment date without a valid reason.

In February 2018, the first trial sentenced Jeong to one year and six months in prison. The court ruled, "The defendant's refusal to enlist for active duty based on religious conscience or political beliefs does not constitute a 'valid reason' as stipulated by the Military Service Act."

During the trial, Jeong stated that as a sexual minority, he had felt alienated by the uniform entrance exam education and peer group culture that enforced masculinity since high school. He said he relied on Christian faith and participated in missionary groups after entering university. According to the court, Jeong also took part in emergency prayer meetings held by Christian groups opposing Israel's military invasion and praying for peace in Palestine, one-person protests addressing the Yongsan tragedy, protests against the 60th anniversary peace prayer meeting for the Korean War, opposition movements against the naval base in Gangjeong Village, Jeju Island, and Wednesday demonstrations.

In the appeal trial held in November 2020, the verdict was overturned to acquittal. The court stated, "The defendant's faith and beliefs are deeply rooted internally and form a clear substance, making it difficult to view them as compromising or strategic," and "a valid reason for refusing military service as defined by the Military Service Act is recognized."

On this day, the Supreme Court also ruled, "Forcing conscientious objectors to fulfill military duties uniformly and imposing criminal penalties or other sanctions for non-compliance is not appropriate in light of the constitutional guarantee system of fundamental rights, including freedom of conscience, and the overall legal order."

Meanwhile, in February, the Supreme Court confirmed an acquittal for a man who refused reserve forces training based on personal beliefs. The court reasoned that refusing reserve forces training and military mobilization training due to ethical, moral, or philosophical beliefs, rather than religious beliefs, constitutes a 'valid reason' as defined by law.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.