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

1. The Defendant, on October 10, 2017, received a written notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the Director General of the Chungcheongnam-gu Military Manpower Office in the name of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and the Defendant’s house located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and the Defendant’s house located in the Defendant’s house located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, and Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, and, on December 4, 2017, failed

2. Determination

A. The so-called conscientious objection and so-called conscientious objection according to relevant legal doctrine and conscience refer to refusing to perform the duty of military service accompanied by gathering guns or military training on the grounds of conscientious decision formed in religious, ethical, philosophical, or other similar motives.

It is not reasonable in light of the constitutional system of guaranteeing fundamental rights, including the freedom of conscience, and the overall legal order, and also violates the spirit of free democracy such as tolerance and tolerance of minority objectors.

Therefore, if a genuine conscience is to be conscientious objection, such objection constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do10912 Decided November 1, 2018).B.

In accordance with the record, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) all of the family members of the defendant, including his parents, sheath, female and male and female, are the believers of D Religious Organizations; (b) on July 16, 201, the defendant was living in accordance with his religious belief until now; (c) the defendant is attending the D Religious Organization E; and (d) the defendant appears to have been sentenced to imprisonment by refusing to perform his duty of enlistment in active duty service and having refused to perform his duty of enlistment in military service; (c) the defendant states that he would be subject to all authorities in Section 1 of Chapter XIII of D Religious Organization; but (d) the defendant states that he refused to perform his duty of enlistment in military and duty of enlistment in active duty service in accordance with his religious belief with his remarks to love neighbors; and (d) the defendant stated on October 10, 2017.