The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A person who receives a notice of convening an active duty enlistment shall comply with the call within three days from the date of call.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 15:31 on November 15, 2016, received the notice of enlistment in the name of the Director General of the Gangwon Military Manpower Office to enlist in the eight group of the eight group of soldiers located in Gyeonggi-gun on December 13, 2016, but did not comply with the call without justifiable grounds by no later than three days after the date of enlistment.

Judgment

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the refusal of enlistment on active duty based on religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Military service objection and so-called conscientious objection pursuant to the legal doctrine related to the judgment of the political party refers to an act of refusing to perform military service accompanied by arms or military training on the grounds of conscientious decision based on which conscientious objection is based based on a religious ethical, moral, philosophical,

In order to realize the duty of national defense, Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act is a provision to restrain evasion of enlistment and to secure the composition of military service by punishing those who have failed to comply with the notice of enlistment in active service or call-up without justifiable grounds.

According to the above provision, if there is a justifiable reason, the defendant cannot be punished. Here, a justifiable reason is the reason for excluding the constituent elements. Therefore, the prosecutor must prove it.

For reasons of conscience formed on one's own inside.