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 as B 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.

On August 2, 2008, the court below presented a written notification stating that the defendant will not enlist in the military according to conscience based on his gender and B, i.e., the following circumstances revealed in detail by the records, i.e., the defendant: (a) he was born under B’s parent chain from the time he was committed; (b) on August 2, 2008, the defendant was able to continuously participate in various religious assemblies and volunteer activities conducted by B, etc. with his religious faith; and (c) the defendant submitted to the Military Manpower Administration upon receipt of the written notice of enlistment to the effect that he would refuse enlistment on the ground of a consistent religious belief; (b) the defendant presented to the Military Manpower Administration a written confirmation of facts stating that he will not enlist in the military according to conscience based on his gender, i.e., a written notification stating that the defendant had shown past violent tendency; (c) the fact inquiry about the defendant’s connection with the game of the party, according to the result of the fact inquiry, the defendant’s use of the game based solely on the fact that the defendant had used the game.

It is concluded that the religious belief or conscience of the defendant is not genuine.