However, the judgment below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In the event that a genuine conscience, i.e., a devout, firm, and sincere conscience is conscientious objection, the conscientious objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and the fact that the defendant has no justifiable reason is proven by a prosecutor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912, Nov. 1, 2018); legal principles of the Supreme Court, that the prosecutor must prove that the defendant’s conscientious objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10912, Nov. 1, 2018); and that the defendant’s religious life (D religious organizations), such as the defendant’s religion (including D religious organizations) and aggression recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated at the original court and the court below’s decision that the prosecutor refuses military service on two occasions a week from the G Council, based on the premise that the prosecutor’s allegation is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.