All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

1) The Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine is a woman’s believers witness who refuses the reserve forces training according to his religious conscience, and this is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, the Defendant’s refusal of training is subject to the Defendant’s refusal of the establishment of a homeland reserve force (amended by Act No. 12791, Oct. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Establishment of a

(2) The judgment of the court below which convicted the conscientious objectors of the facts charged of this case, even though they correspond to "justifiable cause" as stipulated in Article 15 (9) 1 of the Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, and since conscientious objectors clearly expressed their intention of refusal to serve in the reserve force, refusal after the first refusal is not different from the previous violation, and thus constitutes a concurrent crime, the judgment of the court below which held that the refusal after the first refusal constitutes a concurrent crime by applying the same rate as a crime is not only the principle of prohibition of double punishment, but also there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes. 2) The judgment of the court below of unfair sentencing (the judgment of the court of first instance: a fine of 200,000 won

The prosecutor (unfair sentencing on the judgment of the court below of the second instance)'s sentence is too unjustifiable and unfair.

Judgment

The court of the judgment of the court below ex officio decided to consolidate each appeal case of the court below against the defendant, and each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, despite the above reasons for reversal of legal principles.

The judgment on the legitimate argument of the defendant's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles makes it possible to exercise fundamental rights under the Constitution enables the communal life with others within the national community.