The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal is unclear whether the defendant’s objection to military service is based on the genuine conscience, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant falls under justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by

2. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal of military service constitutes justifiable grounds under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

In light of the legal principles and circumstances duly determined by the lower court, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court (i.e., the Defendant continued to serve as B on January 8, 201, and thus, the Defendant has formed a religious faith as B before recognizing conscientious objection as a justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had committed B with intent to evade military service. ② The Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment; ② there was no evidence showing that the Defendant had no violent inclination against that religious belief; ③ B had maintained her belief while taking charge of serving a sentence on the ground of conscientious objection; and ③ the Defendant has been repeatedly serving in prison for a long time; ④ When the pure private alternative military service system administered by an institution irrelevant to military service was implemented, the Defendant is deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on conscientious objection or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the Defendant argued that he had no influence on the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.