The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) by the Defendant alone did not recognize that there was “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act as to the Defendant’s refusal of military service, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that there exist “justifiable cause”, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending

2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the Defendant opened a religious record with the influence of “C” parents, namely, from the time of the Defendant’s lawful adoption and investigation; (b) on July 17, 2007, upon the Defendant’s birth, he was sexual intercourse with C; (c) the Defendant is currently attending an assembly as a member of D, and continues to engage in religious activities by means of transfer and service activities; and (d) the Defendant, upon the receipt of a notice, submitted to the Military Manpower Administration a “C faith,” stating that “I would not respond to the call according to one’s conscience”; (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a de facto reason to acknowledge that there was a violent tendency against that religious belief; and (d) the Defendant refused to enlist in active duty service and military service according to the same; and (e) the Defendant’s religious belief, upon receiving a notice of his religious belief from the Defendant to the Military Manpower Administration’s religious belief, is consistently serving in the military service.