2. Determination

A. uniformly compelling conscientious objectors to perform the duty of military service and imposing sanctions, such as criminal punishment against nonperformance, is unreasonable in light of the constitutional guarantee system and overall legal order, including the freedom of conscience, and is also contrary to the spirit of free democracy, i.e., tolerance and tolerance of the minority.

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

On the other hand, a genuine conscience must be devout, firm, and sincere. Since a person’s inner conscience cannot directly and objectively prove it, it should be determined by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts related to a person’s conscience in light of the nature of an article.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018).B.

In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant's refusal to enlist in the military constitutes a justifiable cause under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act as a genuine conscience.

1) Both the parents, who are or both of the Defendant’s two persons are the believers of D Religious Organizations. 2) The Defendant, from the time of birth to the Maternology, was attending a meeting with the influence of the mother’s father at the time of birth. On October 6, 2012, the Defendant was able to engage in a religious organization’s faith and began to live on the basis of that religion.

3) The Defendant, as a member of E, is attending a meeting and is engaged in transition activities. 4) Since the Defendant received the notice of enlistment around September 2017, the Defendant has been given notice of enlistment.