향토예비군설치법위반
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s existence of “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act is subject to a notice of call-up for training of homeland reserve forces as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, but did not undergo training according to such religious conscience as a new witness. This is in accordance with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”) which has the same effect as the domestic law under Article 6(1) of the Constitution, and thus constitutes justifiable cause under Article 15(8) of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act. 2) insofar as a conscientious objector clearly expresses his intention to conscientious objection to service in the reserve forces, this constitutes the entire service period of the reserve forces, and refusal after having expressed his original intention to refuse military objection, should not be subject to punishment separate from the existing offense, since the Defendant was subject to a punishment for a violation of the Establishment of Military Reserve Forces Act after having already expressed his intention to conscientious objection in the past.
B. The Prosecutor (hereinafter “Defendant 1,00,000 won”) of the lower judgment on Article 2 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Unfair Sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The appeal case of the first and second judgment against the defendant was reviewed in combination with the case of appeal of the first and second judgment on the judgment of the court below for ex officio determination. The crimes of the first and second judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the term or amount increased for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is justified.