병역법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal lies in “D”, the Defendant did not refuse military service according to his devout, firm, and sincere conscience, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s refusal of military service constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and rendered a not-guilty verdict. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and erroneous determination
2. In full view of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the formation of the Defendant’s religious belief, the details of the Defendant’s religious activities, the Defendant’s reason for refusal of military service and the position of alternative military service, which are acknowledged by the materials submitted in the instant trial proceedings, as appropriately decided by the lower court, the Defendant’s refusal of military service according to a religious doctrine as “D” is a decision based on a devout, firm, true, and genuine conscience. This constitutes justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.