The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) lies in “B”, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant refused the duty of military service according to good conscience, which is devout, firm, and sincere, by performing games of violent character.

In addition, the court below did not revoke part of the fact-finding inquiry made to game companies in order to verify whether the defendant actually resided in his life according to B, and did not conduct necessary deliberation.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on justifiable grounds, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the existence of “justifiable grounds” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment at the court below asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this case. The court below rejected the above assertion on the following grounds, based on the following circumstances: (a) Defendant’s religious belief formation process; (b) Defendant’s religious activities details; Defendant’s reason for refusal of military service and the position to alternative military service according to a religious doctrine as “B” was determined by a decision based on a devout, firm, true, and genuine conscience.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, even though the court below was found to have partially revoked the prosecutor's fact inquiry about the game company, the defendant recognized that there was a hostile game using a weapon, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant's religious belief or conscience is not true solely for such reasons as the court below properly explained. Thus, the court below's decision against the prosecutor's game company.