Browse > Article

A Study on the Validity of Criminal Punishment for the Violation of the Clause 1 or the Article 88 of the Military Service Law  

Park, Cheol (장안대학교 부사관과)
Jung, Jung Kyun (장안대학교 부사관과)
Kim, Jin Hwan (용인대학교 경호학과)
Publication Information
Abstract
In the Republic of Korea, punishment of conscientious objectors is rising as a social issue once again. Large number of news articles on the punishment of conscientious objectors are updated on portal sites several times a day. The background for this phenomena is based on the disagreement between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has ruled that it is constitutional for the government to punish conscientious objectors who denied their service for religious belief according to the Clause 1 of the Article 88 of the Military Service Law. However, district courts have taken different stance in the lower instance. 6 rulings in 2015, 7 rulings in 2016, and 16 rulings in the first half of 2017 has declared the conscientious objectors as not guilty. At the same time, the issue is becoming more controversial as the Jeju District Court has made two different rulings on the punishment of conscientious objectors who denied their military service for religious belief. Therefore, the study aims to find out whether conscientious objection can be included as a reasonable cause under the Clause 1 of the Article 88 of the Military Service Law, and take thorough review on the interpretation and the application of Article 18 of the Human Rights Covenant by examining the rulings at the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and District Courts.
Keywords
Conscientious Objection; Military Service Law; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 연합뉴스, '양심적 병역거부 판사에 따라 유무죄 오락가락 혼란'. 2017.7.24.
2 이상명, 양심적 병역거부와 양심의 자유, 고려법학, 49권,49호 912면, 고려대학교 법학연구원, 2007.
3 헌재 1997.3.27.96헌가11.
4 홍성방, 헌법학, 현암사, 467면. 2008.
5 헌재 2004.8.26.2002헌가1.
6 헌재 1998.7.16. 96헌바35.
7 헌재 2011.8.30.2008헌가22등.
8 헌재 2011.8.30.2008헌가22등(재판관 이강국, 재판관 송두환의 한정위헌의견).
9 이준일, 인권법:사회적 이슈와 인권 (제4판) 158면, 홍문사, 2012.
10 나달숙, 법학연구, 24권, 4면, 한국법학회, 2006.
11 한겨레21 제360호 '무조건 3년형 관례가 깨졌다' 기사.
12 금상환, 이른바 양심적 병역거부가 병역기피에 해당하는지 여부 : 대법원 2004.7.15.선고2004도2965 전원합의체 판결, 21세기사법의 전개 : 송민최종영대법원장재임기념. 583면, 박영사, 2005.
13 헌재 2004,10.28. 2004헌바61, 2004헌바62, 2004헌바75(병합).
14 2011.8.30. 2008헌가22, 2009헌가7.24, 2010헌가16.37, 2008헌바103, 2009헌바3, 2011헌바16(병합).
15 중앙일보, '또 뒤집힌 판결'...양심적 병역거부, 20대 1심서 '무죄', 2017. 9.10.
16 오호택, 병역의무의 형평성에 관한 연구, 헌법학연구 제11권 제4호, 216면, 2005.
17 대판 2004.7.15.2004도2965.
18 박주민, 양심에 따른 병역거부자에 대한 처벌의 위헌성과 대체복무제 도입. 양심적 병역거부자에게 대체복무를 허하라. 국회 정책토론회, 2015.
19 광주지법 2016.10.18.2015노1181.
20 대판 2007.12.27.2007도7941.