The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s refusal to call for enlistment (a factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle) constitutes a refusal of military service based on the “ religious belief as a new religious organization,” and thus, constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act has been amended several times after the defendant refused to enlist, but there is no substantial change in the contents of the provisions before and after the amendment in relation to the issues of this case, so there is no special reason to go through the old law.

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

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service, received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the director of the Seoul regional military manpower office to enlist in the Army Training Center in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, from June 27, 2016 to June 27, 2016, and did not enlistment within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds.

3. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “justifiable cause exists” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

As long as the Defendant belongs to a “D religious organization,” it is doubtful whether the Defendant is not merely a dynamic and secret-contestable mind formed by permitting the Defendant to refuse enlistment if he is sexually and incompetuably formed, insofar as he belongs to the “D religious organization,” the belief of “contributing” resulting in the Defendant’s conscientious objection does not appear deep.

B. Other believers using a warning similar to “D religious organization”.