The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the right to conscientious objection is derived from the freedom of conscience as stipulated in Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which serves as the basis for review of constitutionality as the standard for review of constitutionality. As such, the Defendant’s refusal to enlist in the military according to religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” as stipulated in Article 88(1) of the Military

Therefore, even though the facts charged in this case did not constitute an offense, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The duty of military service is ultimately to ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings, and the freedom of conscience can not be regarded as superior value without any restriction.

Therefore, the State’s criminal punishment of conscientious objectors in accordance with the reasonable legislative discretion violates the Constitution Article 10, Article 19, and Article 37(2) of the Constitution, thereby unfairly infringing on the freedom of conscience.

There is no violation of Article 6(1) of the Constitution or Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In addition, conscientious objection does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do5502, Jul. 10, 2014; 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). Accordingly, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since there is no ground for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.