The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

B. Although the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds of misapprehending the legal doctrine, this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on the grounds that the Defendant’s refusal to enlist according to his conscience does not constitute justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and that the right to conscientious objection should not be guaranteed pursuant to Articles 19 and 20(1) of the Constitution, etc.

C. The Defendant filed an appeal against the above judgment on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court prior to remand, and remanded the instant case to the collegiate division of the court, on the grounds that “The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “justifiable cause” as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as the believers of religious organizations B, refused to enlist in the army according to religious conscience and has justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the finding of guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. On July 16, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of enlistment in active duty service in the name of the director general of the Gyeongnam regional military manpower office on September 22, 2015, to the effect that he will be enlisted in the 39 Army Team at the residence of the Defendant C on July 16, 2015, but failed to enlist within three days from the date of the call for

4. The judgment of this Court

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s conscientious objection entails arms and military training on the ground of conscientious decisions made in religious, ethical, moral, philosophical or similar motives.