The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendant himself has justifiable grounds for refusing military service as E, but the defendant's religious or conscience alleged by him is not clear and firm, and the defendant cannot comply with alternative military service in the event of the Ministry of National Defense or the Military Manpower Administration and denies the duty of national defense itself. Thus, the grounds for refusing military service can not be deemed as justifiable grounds under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant has justifiable grounds for refusing military service solely on the ground that he is E.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion that there exists a justifiable reason as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act in the Defendant’s objection, the lower court held that the Defendant’s refusal of military service as E-do and refuses to perform military service under a religious doctrine, 2-B

According to the circumstances known by the defendant based on the data submitted by the defendant as stated in the paragraph, the defendant determined that there exists a justifiable reason under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, according to the records of this case, the defendant was notified of enlistment and submitted to the Military Manpower Administration on September 30, 2014 a written notification stating that "I will not accept the duty of military service on the basis of one's conscience during which he was trained." In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the defendant's conscience that the defendant is unable to perform his duty of military service according to a religious doctrine as E is devout, firm, true, and genuine conscience, and thus, the defendant's refusal to enlistment in active duty service is a conscientious objection. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that there exists a justifiable reason under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

On the other hand, as the prosecutor asserts.