The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

B. Although the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds of misapprehending the legal doctrine, this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on the grounds that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist according to his conscience does not constitute justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and that the right to conscientious objection should not be guaranteed pursuant to Articles 19 and 20(1) of the Constitution, etc.

C. The Defendant filed an appeal against the above judgment on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court prior to remand, and remanded the instant case to the collegiate division of the court, on the grounds that “The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “justifiable cause” as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as the believers of religious organizations B, refused to enlist in the army according to religious conscience and has justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the finding of guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The Defendant is the person to be enlisted for active duty service.

On October 17, 2014, the Defendant did not, without justifiable grounds, enlist in the military on December 11, 2014, after receiving a notice of enlistment in the military training center under the name of the director of the regional military manpower office, to enlistment in the army training center on December 8, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 12874, Dec. 11, 2014>

4. The judgment of this Court

A. The relevant legal doctrine on conscientious objection is based on conscience established in religious, ethical, moral, philosophical, or other similar motives.