- -

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s refusal to train the reserve forces according to his religious conscience as a female witness, and this is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. As such, the Defendant’s refusal to train constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act (amended by Act No. 12791, Oct. 15, 2014; hereinafter “former Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces”) and the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. As long as the conscientious objectors clearly expressed their intention to refuse service of the reserve forces, the refusal after the first refusal is not separate from the existing violation, and thus, constitutes a concurrent crime, the judgment of the court below, which was punished as a concurrent crime, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of double punishment, as well as in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of number of crimes.

B. Each sentence (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 2 million; the fine of KRW 500,000; the fine of KRW 3 million; and the fine of KRW 3 million) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

First, according to the first trial record of the second instance court, the second instance court decided and notified that the defendant should judge the facts charged, considering that the defendant led to the confession of the facts charged, and accordingly examined the evidence. However, although the defendant recognized the facts charged at the time, he/she stated that he/she is conscientious objection since 201, he/she shall be recognized.