Conscientious objectors who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses are also the first to be ‘innocent’ …

The court pleaded not guilty to conscientious objectors who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses. More than two years have passed since the Supreme Court ruled that conscientious objectors should not be penalized, but those who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to be sentenced. In February last year, the Suwon District Law convicted a man in his twenties who refused to train reserve troops after serving in the military, but this is the first time he has been acquitted for refusing to enlist in the active service.

As a result of an interview with Kyunghyang Shinmun on the 29th, Section 4-1 of the Uijeongbu District Court Office of Criminal Affairs (Judge Lee Young-hwan) was acquitted on the 26th in the second trial of Siwoo (active name ), who was accused of violating the Military Service Law. In 2017, Mr. Siu was notified to enlist as an active duty soldier, and was turned over to trial because he did not enlist without good cause.

Mr. Siu is not a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who make up the majority of conscientious objectors. As a child, he was baptized and practiced Christianity. As LGBTQ people, they felt disgusted by the culture of their peers that imposed masculinity and questioned the value system of society. After entering college, he participated in anti-war protests with a Christian spirit that emphasized peace and love. “The war that causes great pain to the socially weak and the Christian doctrine that respects the lives of the weak and the military that exists under the premise of inflicting violence on others are incompatible.”

She began studying ‘queer feminism’, which deals with what society considers ‘normal’ from the point of view of LGBTQ people. As a feminist who avoided discrimination and dichotomous perception of gender and emphasized coexistence, she felt that she could not tolerate a military system that destroys diversity and is based on discrimination and hierarchies, and a state power that defines itself as a standard man. with biological sex. Mr. Siu’s decision to refuse military service was not just a decision of “religion”, “non-violence” and “reverse”, but the result of a combination of various beliefs. Dozens of related activities were submitted to the court.

In February 2018, the first court of first instance sentenced him to one year and six months in prison. They said that conscientious objection to military service cannot be recognized as a right, and that criminal sanctions must be executed in the same way as for general avoidance of enlistment.

In June of that year, the Constitutional Court declared the law on military service without an alternative service system unconstitutional, and in November the Supreme Court ruled that conscientious objectors should not be punished. After the Supreme Court ruling, most of Jehovah’s Witnesses were found innocent. On the other hand, conscientious objectors of so-called ‘non-religious’ or ‘non-Jehovah’s witnesses’ such as non-violence and pacifism were convicted. There was only one case in Suwon District Law that was known to have been acquitted, and it was not a refusal to enlist in active duty, but a refusal to train reserve forces.

This acquittal of Mr. Siu means that, even if he is not a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he has admitted his refusal to serve based on various consciences.

The judiciary said, from the judiciary’s own perspective, “the flow of accidents appears to be due to bias towards the ROK military.” However, he said, “The judgment of the existence of a ‘just reason’ on the grounds of conscientious objection is not made according to the validity of the content of conscience.”

The judge said, “(Whether or not conscientious objection is justified) is based on a true conscience, that is, the voice of a strong and sincere heart that will destroy the value of one’s own personal existence without acting in that way.” (The validity of the content of conscience) will not be a reason for obstacles in the recognition of the ‘just reason’ ”.

The Supreme Court previously said: “Liberal democracy operates according to the principle of majority vote, but it can only ensure its legitimacy on the premise of tolerance and the inclusion of minorities.” While criminal punishment is applied for failing to obtain the consent of the majority of the people, “The state cannot always ignore the existence of conscientious objectors who inevitably refuse military service to protect their personal values ​​of existence.”

What was the interpretation of the doctrine in mainstream Christianity and whether other believers refused to serve as conscientious objection was a matter of proof. The judge said: “On the premise that conscientious objection is a specific doctrine of a particular religion, factors such as whether the doctrine mandates conscientious objection or whether other members also refuse military service on grounds of conscience is the refusal of the accused to serve. It is difficult to be a reference to judge if the belief is deep, true and true ”.

As a result of examining Mr. Siu’s life trajectory according to these criteria, the court found that Mr. Siu’s faith and convictions were deeply rooted and formed a clear substance, and that it could not punish him for conscientious objection based on your true consciousness. Mr. Siu has expressed his intention to refuse military service in the immediate vicinity since at least 2010, and took into account the fact that he chose to refuse military service while applying criminal sanctions prior to the Supreme Court ruling, and That he was willing to implement the alternative service system. The judge said that “(Siwoo’s refusal to do military service) is difficult to see as compromised or strategic.”

Lawyer Lim Jae-seong, who defended Mr. Siu, said: “Both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court addressed the issue of conscientious objection not limited to religious issues, but in terms of greater freedom of conscience. He noted that it has been reduced to ‘whether you believe faithfully or not.’

Attorney Lim said, “I thought the door that had been closed (due to the constitutional decision and the Supreme Court ruling) was open, but actually there was a very narrow gap.” “It was only after two years of the Supreme Court ruling that the innocence of a young man who was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses What came out shows that the level of social conscience or empathy for conscientious objection is still lacking.”

The conviction came three years after Mr. Siu was tried. In a call with the Kyunghyang Shinmun, Mr. Siu said, “It was difficult to wait long, but I am happy to receive a precious judgment.” “I hope that other conscientious objectors who are on trial are also convicted and conscience and sentences are protected.” Said.

If the prosecutor appeals, the Supreme Court will make the final decision on Mr. Siu’s case. Mr. Siu said: “In the Constitutional Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, we put weight on the authenticity and firmness of our conscience, but in the actual trial process, there seems to be a side that did not adequately focus on the process. of shaping consciousness based on where religious affiliation is. ” If the final judgment is received at the conference, I want it to clearly confirm that freedom of conscience belongs to the basic right. ”The Supreme Court is considering several cases of conscientious objectors who are not religious or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

▶ Related article: Two years after the Supreme Court decision on conscientious objection … “My conscience is not a true conscience?”

▶ Related articles: [단독] First recognition of conscientious objection to ‘non-violence and pacifism’

▶ Related article: Conscientious objection to conscientious objection One year sentence of the Supreme Law