2. The judgment below held that the defendant refused to enlist in the military in order to avoid restrictions on other freedom of military service on behalf of the defendant, such as the period during which the defendant had D's activities, reasons for having D's activities, details of D's doctrine related to the performance of military service, whether the defendant was aware of the relevant doctrine, the actual condition of other D's military service subject to enlistment, the defendant's performance of military service, the defendant's attitude of having already suffered or will to suffer a loss due to his refusal of enlistment, the defendant's attitude toward him, the existence of criminal power, school life records, etc., and the general attitude about law, social and violence, and the fact that the defendant refused to enlist in the military in order to avoid restrictions on his religious conscience. In full view of the absence of extenuating circumstances to deem that the defendant refused to perform alternative military service for a considerable period of time on behalf of the defendant in the future, it appears that the defendant's belief is devout, firm, and sincere that the defendant was unable to perform his military service to protect his religious conscience.

In addition, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's refusal to enlist was not in accordance with the defendant's faith as above, and thus, the defendant was acquitted of the facts charged in this case.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.