병역법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) by the Defendant alone did not recognize that there was “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act as to the Defendant’s refusal of military service, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that there exist “justifiable cause”, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending
2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the Defendant opened a religious record with the influence of “B” parents, namely, from the time of his lawful adoption and investigation; (b) on July 2007, the Defendant was sexual intercourse with his father and had life according to that religious belief; (c) the Defendant is currently attending a regular meeting as E after his invasion; and (d) continues to be in charge of the F’s duties during the above conference, and is performing religious activities by providing the Military Manpower Administration with a notice that “B will not respond to the call according to one’s conscience; (d) the Defendant’s life record stating that “A student was sexually frighting to have difficulty in distribution; and (e) the Defendant’s religious belief and belief that he was unable to respond to the call according to that conscience; and (e) the Defendant’s religious belief and belief that he would be sexually sexually imprising; and (e) the Defendant’s religious belief and belief that he would be against his religious belief.”