However, without sufficient explanatory materials, the lower court determined that the Defendant had justifiable grounds for conscientious objectors. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion that there exists a justifiable reason as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, the lower court held that the Defendant’s refusal to perform his military service as the believers of D religious organizations is a justifiable reason.

According to the circumstances known by the defendant based on the data submitted by the defendant as stated in the paragraph, the defendant determined that there exists a justifiable reason under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

In addition to the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the defendant submitted a written notification to the Military Manpower Administration on November 21, 2016, stating that "I will inform you that I would refuse military service due to personal conscience that I would refuse military service due to the ruling that I would like to lead a life as he was forced from the time I became a D religious organization," and that I would like to confirm that I would implement military service upon the implementation of pure private alternative military service system. ② In full view of the fact that the defendant would implement military service system, the defendant's belief that I would not perform military service according to a religious doctrine as D religious organization is deep, firm, and sincere and genuine conscience, and thus, the defendant's active duty service is the military service objection according to genuine conscience.