The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, has a normative character of the Constitution. According to Article 18 of the relevant Covenant and Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant’s refusal to serve in the military according to conscience is recognized as “the right to refuse military service according to conscience.” As such, the Defendant’s refusal to undergo homeland reserve training based on the above right constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of

B. Inasmuch as a person asserting double punishment of the same act clearly expresses his/her intent to conscientious objection to service of the reserve forces, such act is related to the entire period of the reserve forces organization. A single act of refusal after the first expressed his/her intention to refuse military service should not be punished separately from the previous act.

In addition, as long as punishment has been imposed on non-performance of basic training, it is also a double punishment to impose the same supplementary training and punish the same for non-performance.

2. Determination

A. “Justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) is, in principle, premised on the existence of an abstract duty of military service or a duty of training for reserve forces, and the existence of the duty of training for reserve forces, and the recognition of the performance of the duty itself, but should be deemed to be limited to a cause not attributable to the non-performance of the duty, such as a disease, accident, etc., that can justify the non-performance

However, a person who has refused to perform a specific duty of military service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and further, the right has superior constitutional value to the function of the legislative purpose of the legal provision of this case.