The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, a “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of homeland reserve forces Act, was notified of a call-up for the training of homeland reserve forces as indicated in the judgment below, but did not receive each training according to his religious conscience as a new witness, who is a new witness to women and children. This constitutes a justifiable cause under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has the same effect as domestic law under Article 6(1) of the Constitution, and thus, constitutes a justifiable cause under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of homeland reserve forces Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”).

B. As long as a conscientious objector clearly expresses his/her intent to conscientious objection to service of the reserve forces, such refusal constitutes a whole period of the reserve force’s service. Moreover, refusal after having expressed his/her intention to refuse military service should not be subject to punishment separate from existing violations by means of a single act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The “justifiable cause” of the legal provision of this case, in principle, ought to be deemed to be based on the premise that the existence of an abstract duty of military service or a duty to train reserve forces and the confirmation of the performance of such duty itself, but should be based on the premise that the failure to perform such duty can be justified, i.e., a cause not attributable to the nonperformancer, such as disease or accident, etc.

However, even if a person who refused to perform a specific duty of military service is recognized as having superior constitutional value to the function of the legislative purpose of the legal provision of this case, if he/she is punished by applying the legal provision of this case, his/her constitutional right is guaranteed by the Constitution of Korea.