On June 24, the Supreme Court recognized a conscientious objector who was not a believer of Jehovah’s Witnesses for the first time. The latest ruling is significant for it broadened the scope of “genuine conscientious objection” to other religious beliefs, pacifism and feminism. In 2018, the Supreme Court grand bench recognized conscientious objectors, but only over 800 believers of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been acquitted so far.

The key issue was whether someone not a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to enlist in the military based on his beliefs, such as personal principles for nonviolence, principles against war, and feminism, could be recognized as having “justifiable grounds” to evade military service stipulated in Paragraph 1, Article 88 of the Military Service Act. Jeong (34), argued that refusing to enlist in the military according to his beliefs for nonviolence and pacifism as a member of a Christian sect, a sexual minority and a queer feminist was “justifiable grounds.”

In his first trial in February 2018, the court did not accept his argument. In August 2011, the Constitutional Court ruled that Paragraph 1 of Article 88 of the Military Service Act, which punishes any attempt to evade military service, was in line with the Constitution, and in 2004, the Supreme Court grand bench did not recognize conscientious objectors and announced a sentence of a year and six months’ imprisonment.

In Jeong’s second trial in November 2020, the court overturned the first ruling and acquitted Jeong. This was the first acquittal in a lower court trial of a conscientious objector who was not a believer of Jehovah’s Witnesses. After the first ruling, in June 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Military Service Act, which did not stipulate alternative services, was inconsistent with the Constitution, and in November 2018, the Supreme Court grand bench overturned the precedent and recognized conscientious objectors. The judges in the second trial presented these rulings as the grounds for the acquittal.

At the time, the Supreme Court grand bench announced the decision and said, “If a person refuses military service based on a genuine conscience, it is ‘justifiable grounds’ stipulated in Paragraph 1, Article 88 of the Military Service Act. And when we say genuine conscience, we mean that the belief is deep, firm and sincere.” However, the bench added a provisory clause, “Since a conscience, which lies inside a person, cannot be directly and objectively proven, the judgment should be made based on proof of indirect facts and circumstantial facts related to the conscience.” In other words, specific material to prove genuine conscientious objection was necessary.

Jeong submitted materials to prove his genuine conscientious objection to the bench. Jeong handed in documents confirming his participation in a number of demonstrations against violence and rallies to protect the socially vulnerable, such as the Emergency Prayer Meeting of Christian Groups Opposing Israeli Attacks and Supporting Peace in Palestine, the Jeju Peace Pilgrimage, and the Wednesday Demonstrations (for comfort women victims). He also submitted articles on sexual minorities, which he wrote as a member of the school newspaper editing board in college, and his thesis on feminism, which he wrote in graduate school. The judges in the second trial recognized Jeong as a conscientious objector based on these materials. The prosecutor requested access to view Jeong’s school records from middle and high school to look for any violent tendencies, but the bench in the second trial said, “We did not find any particular circumstances that could be recognized as a violent tendency.” This day, the Supreme Court finalized the ruling from the second trial.

A Supreme Court representative said, “The defendant was not a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and he did not refuse military service simply based on his Christian faith alone, so this case is different from other existing cases of conscientious objectors, which are based on religious beliefs.” He further said, “It is the first decision that accepted the ruling in a lower court, which acquitted a person other than a believer of Jehovah’s Witnesses for refusing to enlist in the military on grounds of his belief for nonviolence, his principles against war, and his religious belief.”

However, it is difficult to conclude that this widened the path for conscientious objectors who are not members of Jehovah’s Witnesses to get acquitted. Jeong’s lawyer, Im Jae-seong said, “In the case of Jeong, they traced the location of his cell phone for a year to check whether he actually engaged in religious activities.” He added, “The process to verify one’s conscience is excessive, and the process needs to better respect a person’s basic rights.”

The Supreme Court representative said, “Regardless of religious or nonreligious beliefs, the judgment on genuine conscientious objection was made after an individual review of the defendant’s life.” He added, “Since this is a problem of how much the genuine conscience can be proven in each individual case, it is difficult to say that the latest ruling increased the possibility of acquittal for people with nonreligious beliefs.”