All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of homeland Reserve Forces Act, was notified of a call-up for the training of homeland reserve forces as indicated in the decision of the lower court, but did not receive each training according to such religious conscience as a new witness. This constitutes a justifiable cause under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has the same effect as domestic law under Article 6(1) of the Constitution, and thus, constitutes a justifiable cause under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of homeland Reserve Forces Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”).

As long as a conscientious objector clearly expresses his/her intention to conscientious objection to the duty of the reserve forces, such refusal is related to the entire period of the reserve force’s service. Since refusal after the first expressed his/her intention to refuse military service is a single act, such refusal should not be punished separately from existing violations.

Each sentence (the first instance court: the fine of 2 million won, the second instance court: the fine of 500,000 won) of the original court on the accused of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below and tried both in the trial of the court. Each of the crimes of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal.

We examine the paragraph.

The “justifiable cause” of the legal provision of this case is determined as to the existence of justifiable cause for determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle.