4. Major Opinions Submitted
A. Submitting the Opinion to the Supreme Court on the Violation of
Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act and Article 15 (9) of the Reserve
Forces Act
For the cases of violations of the Military Service Act (2016-do-10912) and Reserve Forces
Act (2018-do-4708) pending at the Supreme Court, we submitted an opinion on July 30 that it
is a violation of the freedom of conscience to punish conscientious objectors to military service
and drills for reserve forces pursuant to Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act and Article
15 (9) of the Reserve Forces Act without offering opportunities for alternative service and that
conscientious objection to military service and drills for reserve forces should be viewed as
justifiable grounds stated in the abovementioned provisions.
Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act and Article 15 (9) of the Reserve Forces Act stipulate
criminal penalties for those who fail to enlist in the military and participate in related drills
without any justifiable grounds. The Supreme Court had been finding conscientious objectors
guilty, viewing that conscientious objection to military service did not constitute justifiable
grounds.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's view, a conscientious objector was found not guilty at the
first trial for the first time in 2004. Since then, a total of 86 cases have been acquitted at the first
trial. Among these 86 cases, 72 were acquitted in the recent two years. Acquittals were handed
down at the appellate trials in October 2016 and February 2018.
We have continually expressed our opinion that alternative service must be adopted as the
criminal punishment of conscientious objectors violates the freedom of conscience guaranteed
by the Constitution. We decided to submit our opinion to the Supreme Court as the controversies
surrounding the cases being tried and the justice department's judgments may have a significant
impact on human rights of conscientious objectors.
B. Submitting the Opinion on the Disapproval of Criminal Indemnity for
Security and Custody Measures
Regarding the case of the re-appeal for partial approval of criminal indemnity pending at
54
Commission's Major Activities