The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) by the Defendant alone did not recognize that there was “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act as to the Defendant’s refusal of military service, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that there exist “justifiable cause”, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending

2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the Defendant entered a written statement with the influence of his parents, i.e., “D religious organization,” who was a new parent, from the time of the Defendant’s lawful adoption and investigation; (b) on December 22, 2007, the Defendant was sexually and was living with D religious organization as a new member of E; and (c) the Defendant is currently attending an assembly regularly as a member of E, and continues to engage in religious activities through such methods as transfer and service activities; and (d) the Defendant received the written enlistment notice and submitted to the Military Manpower Administration for the reason that “the Defendant would not respond to the call according to one’s conscience as a new religious organization” and “a written confirmation of the fact that the Defendant was a new religious organization,” and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a violent tendency against that religious belief during the Defendant’s growth process, and that the Defendant was not subject to criminal punishment following the Defendant’s refusal to perform alternative military service as an active military service organization.”