For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s refusal to train homeland reserve forces does not constitute justifiable grounds under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, and that the failure to comply with a new notice of call-up for training cannot be deemed to violate the principle of prohibition of double punishment, and rejected the allegation in the grounds

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and the Constitutional Court’s decision and relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the freedom of conscience under Article 19 of the Constitution, the freedom of conscience under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the justifiable grounds under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, the identity of training refusal refusal and the principle prohibiting double punishment, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.