logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.14 2019노1932
병역법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there was a “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act even though the materials submitted by the Defendant alone did not recognize that there was a “justifiable cause” as to the Defendant’s refusal of military service.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s refusal of military service is “C” and the Defendant’s genuine conscience that he cannot perform military service according to a religious doctrine, and that there exists “justifiable cause” as prescribed by Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is justifiable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted. A.

The Defendant, under the influence of C’s parents, participated in C’s assembly from the time of birth, was sexual intercourse and was sexual intercourse. On May 18, 2013, May 16, 2016, the Defendant was sexual intercourse with C’s religious organization D, and was sexual intercourse.

B. From the time when the Defendant came to be a member of C faith, the Defendant continued to have a religious life by attending an assembly regularly and continuously for about seven years, and engaging in pre-do and volunteer activities.

C. Even though the Defendant was well aware that he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, the Defendant expressed his intent to refuse military service on the ground of religious belief, consistently accepting criminal punishment for a long period of about four years from the time he was prosecuted for the instant case to the time of the trial.

In light of this, the defendant's conscience seems to be firmly established.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a circumstance that had been a violent tendency contrary to the defendant's religious belief in the course of the growth of the defendant.

E. The Defendant has faithfully fulfilled the obligation of alternative military service.

3...

arrow