A. The Defendant, as Edo, refused to enlist in the military according to his religious conscience. The punishment of the Defendant’s act constitutes an unjust infringement on personal rights, religion and conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus violates the principle of excessive prohibition or proportionality and the State’s duty to protect fundamental rights pursuant to Articles 10 and 37(2) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the refusal of enlistment based on conscience constitutes an exercise of specific rights derived from Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights and Article 19 of the Constitution, which are part of the domestic law pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Constitution, and Article 19 of the Constitution, and thus constitutes an exercise of specific rights derived from Article 18(1) of the Constitution, and thus, the Defendant’s refusal of enlistment in the military service constitutes “justifiable cause” as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. Article 65(1)2 of the Military Service Act provides that “a person who is deemed unfit for military service due to reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as serving time in prison, may be transferred to supplemental service or transferred to the second citizen service.” Article 136(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act provides that a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with or without prison labor for at least one year and six months may be transferred to the second citizen service. This is a violation of the principle of clarity in the principle of no punishment without prison labor (the latter part of Article 12(1) of the Constitution), the principle of prohibition of blanket delegation (Article 75 of the Constitution), and the principle of proportionality (Article 103 of the Constitution) is comprehensively delegated by a conscientious objector to the Enforcement Decree. Therefore, a judge shall be sentenced to one year and six months in consideration of the above circumstances, thus infringing upon the discretion of judges in sentencing (Article 103 of the Constitution) and the principle of proportionality of responsibility and punishment (Article 10 of the Constitution).