2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist was based on a genuine conscience and deemed to fall under justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist was without justifiable grounds.

① From around September 2008, the Defendant was affected by his religious faith from his parents, and was engaged in voluntary activities from around 2008, as yet, the Defendant had been forced to engage in sexual intercourses, and had been in b faith on August 29, 2009, and had been engaged in activities as B without interruption until now.

(2) The Defendant currently attends a meeting while attending the meeting and continues to engage in religious activities, including volunteer activities.

Since September 2015, the Defendant had been deprived of her life and had been engaged in the activity as F (on the other hand, with more time than other believers, more than 70 hours prior to every month).

③ The Defendant submitted the materials that “B” was adopted and implemented as a major doctrine that he did not perform all activities related to war, violence, etc., due to sexual invasion.

Until now, conscientious objection is made on the ground of religious conscience while accepting heavy punishment by many believerss.