The defendant has a justifiable reason to refuse enlistment.

As such, there was no intention to evade enlistment.

Therefore, although the defendant should be acquitted, the judgment of the court below which recognized the violation of the Military Service Act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below that the refusal of military service according to a religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is the same as the judgment of the court below.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was fully aware that the so-called conscientious objection under the current legal system (i.e., “the third law”) does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Since it is judged, the intention of violating the Military Service Act is also fully recognized.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.