2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s refusal of military service constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, based on the Defendant’s genuine conscience that the Defendant cannot perform his duty of military service according to a religious doctrine, is justifiable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted. A.

The Defendant, under the influence of the parents who are the believers of a religious organization B, participated in the assembly of B religious organizations from the time of birth to the post, and became a religious organization’s believers with B religious organization C on May 16, 2009, 16 years old.

B. From the time when the Defendant came to know of B religious organizations upon the invasion, the Defendant continued to have been present at regular and continuous assemblies for about ten years, and continued to have been engaged in religious activities by means of challenge and volunteer activities, etc.

C. Even though the Defendant, who was a believers of the same religious organization B as the Defendant, appears to have been sentenced to punishment D, E, and B in prison, the Defendant expressed his will to refuse military service on the grounds of religious belief, consistently accepting the risk of criminal punishment over a long period of not less than six years from the time the Defendant was prosecuted for the instant case to the time of the trial.

In light of this, the defendant's conscience seems to be firmly established.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a circumstance that had been an violent tendency contrary to the defendant's religious belief in the course of the growth of the defendant.