2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “The Defendant did not enlist until October 30, 2015, when he received a written notice of enlistment in the active duty service from the Lee Dong-in to October 27, 2015 at the Defendant’s office located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 16, 2015, to be 30 copies of the written notice of enlistment from Lee Dong-in to October 27, 2015” without justifiable grounds.

No punishment, such as criminal punishment, shall be imposed on a person who fails to perform military duty accompanying military training and military training on the ground of conscience formed at his/her own inside.

It is not reasonable in light of the constitutional guarantee system and overall legal order, including the freedom of conscience, to uniformly enforce the performance of military service to conscientious objectors and impose sanctions such as criminal punishment against their non-performance. In addition, it also violates the spirit of free democracy, i.e., tolerance and tolerance of the minority.

Therefore, if a genuine conscience is to be conscientious objection, such objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018). Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the record in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the Defendant’s conscience as a D religious organization’s believers that the Defendant is unable to perform his duty of military service according to a religious doctrine is devout, firm, and sincere and genuine conscience. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in active duty has justifiable grounds as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case is just.