The court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there was no specific evidence to deem that there was a “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act due to the formation of an imminent and specific conscience based on such belief, and that there was sufficient recognition of the Defendant’s violation of the Military Service Act, and there was an error of law by

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant’s statement and evidence submitted by the Defendant at the court below: (a) the period during which the Defendant was influence and acted with the faith of E religious organization; (b) the details of activities in E religious organization; (c) the contents of E religious organization doctrine related to performing the duty of military service; (d) whether the Defendant was aware of relevant doctrine; (e) the status of the performance of the duty of military service in other E religious organizations and believers subject to enlistment; (e) the details of the disadvantage that the Defendant has already suffered or may have been expected to suffer due to his refusal to enlist; and (e) the Defendant’s attitude on the law, social life and violence as well as school life records; and (e) the general attitude of the Defendant’s life as well as on the law, social life and violence that are expressed in his life; and (e) the Defendant refused to perform faithfully alternative military service for a considerable period of time on behalf of the duty of military service on behalf of the Defendant. In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant’s belief and belief of trust is dev.

The defendant's refusal to enlist is not based on the defendant's belief above.