The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is C believers who refused to enlist in the military according to religious conscience, and the defendant has “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant is a person subject to enlistment in active duty service.

Although the Defendant confirmed that he was “to enlist in active duty service on November 21, 2016,” which was sent to the e-mail address (B) of the Defendant on October 6, 2016, the Defendant did not enlist within three days without justifiable grounds.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the refusal of enlistment on active duty based on religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

C. Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act provides that “A person who receives a written notice of enlistment in active service fails to enlist within three days from the date of enlistment without justifiable grounds, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years.”

See Dod, uniformly forcing conscientious objectors to perform military service and imposing sanctions such as criminal punishment against their nonperformance violates the spirit of free democracy, such as the guarantee of fundamental rights, including the freedom of conscience, and tolerance and tolerance of the minority.

Therefore, if conscientious objection is made based on genuine conscience, it constitutes "justifiable cause" under Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act.

Fidelity fact that there is no justifiable reason is a constituent element of crime, and the prosecutor must prove it.

However, proving the absence of a genuine conscience is similar to proving the absence of a fact that is not specified in a period and space.

Therefore, the Defendant asserting conscientious objection is a human being if he/she does not act accordingly.