Prosecutors argued in court that they had to see whether the defendant logged into online battle games, such as League of Legends (LOL), which has become popular recently, as well as first-person shooter games to verify whether the defendant was really a conscientious objector.

According to a fact verification request that the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office submitted in a trial of one conscientious objector, the prosecutors claimed the need to check and see whether the defendant was a user of game companies like KakaoGames, Nexon Korea, and Net Marble, and requested access to his ID, the date he subscribed to the membership, and the times that he logged on and played the games.

The prosecutors named a total of eight games--Battlegrounds, Sudden Attack, Special Force, Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, Overwatch, Starcraft 1 and 2, Diablo, and League of Legends. Games without guns where strategy and cooperation among users are important were also included as well as shooter games. Starcraft and League of Legends are so popular that they were adopted as a demonstration event in the Asian Games last year.

The prosecutors explained in the request that it was necessary to determine whether there was a just reason for the conscientious objection. The prosecution also included in the questions for the defendant, "Have you ever played computer or mobile games?"

Just because a person plays such games does not mean that he has violent tendencies or is in favor of war. But the problem is that the prosecutors are trying too hard to connect this with conscientious objection.

This goes against the purpose of the judgments made by the Constitutional Court last June and the Supreme Court last November. In the ruling, the Supreme Court said that the state should determine true conscientious objectors by reviewing their overall lives, such as family environment, upbringing, school life, and social experience. The court never mentioned games. In the trial outcomes of over a hundred cases of conscientious objectors following the Supreme Court ruling, whether or not the defendant played games never had a decisive influence on the court's decision. The prosecutors' request can also be criticized for invading one's privacy.

Attorney Yi Chang-hwa, who has defended conscientious objectors said, "Of all the countries that have adopted an alternative to military service, not one considers experience of virtual games as a factor in determining whether or not that person is a conscientious objector. Playing games and refusing military training, which aims to kill, is a different problem, and it is very inappropriate to consider this as a factor in determining whether or not a person is a conscientious objector." Previously, in a trial of one conscientious objector, the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office had requested to check whether or not the defendant had joined and logged into a first-person shooter game triggering controversy.