All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 is punished by a fine of No. 1 as stated in Decision 2013 High Court Decision 625.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as a Jehovah’s witness, refused the training of the reserve forces according to religious conscience. This is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. As such, the Defendant’s refusal of training constitutes “justifiable cause” as stipulated under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, and as long as the conscientious objectors clearly expressed their intention to refuse the service of the reserve forces, the refusal after the first refusal constitutes a crime because it is not separate from the existing violation, and thus constitutes a concurrent crime, the lower court’s judgment, which was punished as a concurrent crime, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the number of offenses (the first lower judgment:3 million won; the second judgment: one million won; and the third judgment: the lower judgment; and the second judgment: 2 million won).

B. The punishment sentenced by the prosecutor (the first judgment: KRW 3 million, and the second judgment: KRW 1 million) by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the case of this Court No. 2013No2739, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, the case of this Court No. 2013No2740, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the case of appeal against the judgment of the court below No. 2014No1798, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, were consolidated in the proceedings of the first instance. Each of the crimes of the court below No. 1, 2, and 3 are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the

B. In addition, according to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on August 23, 2012 by the Ulsan District Court on January 27, 2012 due to a violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years.