So, as far as I can see the ruling was that the guy hadn't sufficiently proved through his actions (e.g. protesting, joining any anti-war movements or in this case even expressing this view to anyone beforehand) that he was an actual conscientious objector and not just a chancer who didn't want to serve.

The fact that he played PUBG was brought up as part of the suggestion that he was just having a go but wasn't the whole case against him. Indeed tbh I can't really see anything suggesting it was a particularly important consideration compared to the lack of positive evidence of conscientious objection but obviously it's the bit that's going to get clicks.

It is stupid. The man says he is .orally opposed to the military, but the courts rules that playing a computer game like PUBG makes that a lie.

According to the article, the court argued that the guy refusing mandatory service for conscientious reasons enjoys playing violent games such as PUBG, calling the reasons given for abstaining from military service in question

south Korea is a fascist police state that will use stupid excuses to force men to die for the government.

South Korean government isn't exactly a bastion of democracy and sensibility. It's a fascist hell hole.

Avoiding political opinions on South Korea, the court's claim would be that because he likes shooting guns at other people in games, his objection to military service has no ground to stand on.

One presumes that there is a certain standard in Korea to establish that you are a CO. Compelled military service makes it harder to avoid this. It seems that the Korean courts believe that liking violent video games means you're a violent person. It's a terrible ruling, but it frankly doesn't surprise me given the context.

I always knew my sonic 3 play through would bring me here.

Goddamn, the actual article is even more absurd than the title.

If you live in the United States, depending on the state, you might get your wish.