향토예비군설치법위반
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the member of the homeland reserve forces belonging to the three sub-sections of the 2013 Godo 2735. A. The defendant is the member of the homeland reserve forces belonging to the three sub-sections of the 2013
On June 3, 2013, at around 22:16, the Defendant was unable to participate in the carried-over supplementary training (the fourth supplementary training 4H in the last half of 09) conducted at the training site of the Namyang-do Reserve Forces in South-gu, Namyang-si, the Defendant received a notice of convening a training course in the name of the Ministry of Education in the name of the Ministry of Education in the name of the Nam-do 2 Eup-do, Nam-do, the second half of 2013.
B. The Defendant above A.
On June 20, 2013, on the same date and at the same place as Paragraph 1, the Ministry of Education issued a notice of convening an education training in the name of the Ministry of Education in the name of the Ministry of Education in the Nam-do 2 Eup-do, Nam-si, Nam-si, Namyang-si, which caused the carried-over supplementary training (the second supplementary training in the last 13 years) to be conducted at the training site of the South-
The defendant of "2016 Highly 835" is the member of the homeland reserve forces belonging to the Namyang-si, Namyang-do.
On November 25, 2015, the Defendant was unable to participate in the above training without justifiable grounds even if the Defendant directly received the notice of call to the effect that it would result in six hours of the carried-over supplementary training (the second supplementary training for the end of the 13-year period) conducted at the training site of the Guri-ri and the Namyang-gu Reserve Forces on November 25, 2015.
2. The summary of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion was that the Defendant, as a believers of a D religious organization, refused to train the reserve forces on grounds of religious conscience, and there was “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 15(9)1 of the former Establishment of the homeland Reserve Forces Act (amended by Act No. 12791, Oct. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Establishment of homeland Reserve Forces Act”) in the case of “2016 Man-Ma835, May 29, 2016,” and “before the Act was amended to the Reserve Forces Act (Act No. 14184, Nov. 30, 2016; hereinafter “former Establishment of homeland Reserve Forces Act”).
3. conscientious objection according to relevant legal principles and conscience, so-called conscientious objection is either religious ethical and ethical philosophy.