The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty against the defendant is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

On July 26, 2012, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Seoul Military Manpower Office to enlist in the Army Training Center located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and on September 3, 2012.

Nevertheless, without justifiable grounds, the Defendant did not enlist until September 6, 2012 after three days from the date of enlistment.

B. The so-called conscientious objection and so-called conscientious objection pursuant to the relevant legal doctrine refers to an act of refusing to perform the duty of military service involving participation in military training or arms on the grounds of conscientious decision formed in religious, ethical, moral, philosophical or other similar motives. If conscientious objection is based on genuine conscience, such refusal constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

The conscience referred to in conscientious objection shall be devout, firm, and sincere.

The belief deep means that it is a depth of a person's inner sense and it affects all his thoughts and actions.

The whole of life, which is not a part of the life, must be under the influence of its belief.

The belief that it is firm means that it is not flexible or variable.

Although it is not necessarily a fixed change, the belief has a clear substance, and it should not be easily changed as it is.

It means that the belief that it is true is not false, but is neither compromise nor strategic depending on circumstances.

Even if the conscientious objectors are deep.