All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 600,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s act of conscientious objection is derived from the freedom of conscience pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the Defendant was not present at the reserve forces training according to a religious conscience that was advanced, there is “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Act on the Establishment of Local Reserve Forces to which the Defendant did not undergo the reserve forces training.

B) Since the failure to participate in the exercise of the reserve forces in this case constitutes one crime based on the same conscience decision, the judgment of acquittal or dismissal of public prosecution should be rendered.

C) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by each court below to the defendant (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 500,000, the second instance court: the fine of KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that the second instance court’s punishment (200,000 won in penalty) against the Defendant by the prosecutor (the court below’s judgment of the second instance) is too uneasible.

2. Before making ex officio judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor, the court prior to transfer decided to concurrently examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below (Seoul District Court Decision 2015No. 3235, Gwangju District Court Decision 2016No. 692). Each offense of the judgment of the court below in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be sentenced to a single punishment in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and in this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

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

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. 1 Whether there exists a justifiable reason for the judgment of the court below is also the first instance court and the second instance court.