The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) that the Defendant’s refusal to serve in the military on the grounds of religious conscience does not constitute justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the refusal of enlistment by the Defendant had justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in detail by the records, i.e., the defendant continued to participate in various religious assemblies and volunteer activities conducted by D believers as D on July 26, 2008 and living with his religious belief, up to the trial, and the defendant does not confirm the circumstances that suspect the defendant's religious belief, such as that he shown his violent tendency, (ii) it is not confirmed that the defendant had access to the game (G), even though it is recognized that the defendant had access to the game containing violent contents, considering the characteristics of the game based on the virtual world, not reality, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant used the above game, solely on the ground that he used it, the defendant has such violent inclination or that his religious belief or conscience is not genuine). Thus, the judgment of the court below is justifiable and there is no error of law as alleged by the prosecutor or misapprehension of legal principles as above.

3. Since the appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.