병역법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles) does not recognize that the materials submitted by the Defendant alone constituted “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act to refuse enlistment in active service by the Defendant, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that there exists “justifiable cause” although refusal to enlistment in active service based on the doctrine by the Defendant cannot be deemed as conscientious objection based on “justifiable cause” and thus, constitutes “justifiable cause,”
2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (i) “(i) family members, including the Defendant’s grandparents, parents, and grandparents, are the believers of a religious organization B; (ii) the Defendant was sexually fright and was engaged in volunteer activities from the time of birth to his parent; (iii) the Defendant is entering B religious organization D; and (iv) the Defendant stated that he would refuse to perform his duty of military service in accordance with the religious belief first with the law; (iii) the Defendant was given notice of enlistment in active duty service on November 1, 2016; and (v) the Defendant expressed his will to refuse enlistment from the investigative agency to this court under the religious belief, and expressed his will to refuse enlistment in active duty service; and (v) the Defendant stated his religious belief to the effect that he will perform his duty of military service for a period of time or robbery, regardless of his religious belief, and thus, is devouting the Defendant’s religious belief and having no justifiable reason to prove that he is a religious organization under Article 81 of the Military Service Act.”