Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) In light of the legal principles, Defendant 1, as a female witness, refused training for the reserve forces according to his religious conscience. This is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. As such, Defendant’s refusal of training constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, but the first instance judgment convicting Defendant of the charges of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. In addition, as long as a conscientious objector clearly expresses his intention to refuse the service of the reserve forces, refusal after the first refusal is not separate from the previous violation, and constitutes a concurrent crime, the second and third lower judgment, which was punished for concurrent crimes by applying the same rate as a crime, is not in violation of the principle of prohibition of double punishment, and there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of the number of crimes. 2) In addition, each sentence of unfair sentencing against Defendant, each of the judgment of the first instance court (the first instance court: fine 200,000 won, fine 1.2 million won, and fine 3 million won).

B. The prosecutor's sentence against the defendant (the third judgment of the court of the judgment of the court of the court of the court of the court below) (the third judgment of the court of the court of the court of the court of the appeal is too un

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

Each appeal case against the defendant against the above judgment of the court of first instance was consolidated at the trial court, and the facts constituting the crime are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be sentenced. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, despite the above reasons for reversal of legal principles.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on whether the exercise of fundamental rights under the Constitution is a national community.