병역법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the Defendant, as D’s believers, refused enlistment in active duty service in accordance with the order of conscience formed by such religious doctrine. However, such a ground cannot be deemed as “justifiable cause” as an exception to punishment under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and the lower court determined that there exists a justifiable reason to refuse to perform the duty of military service solely on the ground that the freedom of conscience is guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine’s refusal to perform military training and bearing arms on the ground of a genuine conscience decision based on a religious, ethical, moral, philosophical, or similar motive formed inside his own inner premises constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.
Here, conscience as referred to in this article is devout, firm, and true.
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 have a devout and firm belief, if they act differently according to circumstances in relation to such belief, such belief cannot be deemed to be true.
In specific cases of violation of the Military Service Act, if a defendant asserts conscientious objection, he/she is a human conscience.