2. The fact that the exercise of fundamental rights under the Constitution pertaining to the grounds for appeal ought to be carried out to the extent that it enables people to live a common life with others within a national community and does not endanger other constitutional values and the legal order of the State is the fundamental limitation of the exercise of all fundamental rights, including the freedom of conscience.

The freedom of conscience is a relative freedom that can be restricted by law in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution if there is a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction.

In addition, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, has been prepared to specify the duty of national defense, which is the most fundamental duty of the people, and if the national security is not achieved because such duty of military service is not fulfilled properly, the dignity and value as human beings cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, military service is ultimately aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience of conscientious objectors cannot be deemed as superior value to the above constitutional legal interests.

Therefore, for the above constitutional legal interests, the freedom of conscience of a defendant is restricted in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

This is a legitimate restriction permitted under the Constitution.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do2965 Decided July 15, 2004). In addition, national security consists of the State’s existence and all the conditions of freedom that each individual enjoy.

The peaceful co-existence relationship is established in the international community, and alternative military service is provided to conscientious objectors in our society by understanding and tolerance.