The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The reason for appeal is that the right to conscientious objection is derived from the freedom of conscience and derived from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “Convention”), and the United Nations Covenant on Freedom has the duty to relieve conscientious objectors on the ground that the government violated Article 18 of the Covenant. Such a rule has the normative character of the Constitution that serves as the standard for examination of constitutionality beyond the simple framework of the law, and the European Court of Human Rights also has the protection from Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights to Guarantee the Freedom of conscience, conscience, and religion. As such, the Defendant’s conscientious objection act constitutes the right derived from the freedom of conscience under Article 18 of the Covenant and Article 19 of the Constitution, and thus, constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 8(1) of the Military Service Act and Article 88(1) of the Constitution, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment of the judgment.

2. We examine the judgment, Article 19 of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall enjoy the freedom of conscience.” Among the freedom of conscience under the Constitution, the freedom of conscience formation, which remains in the inner trial, may not be absolutely restricted, and on the other hand, the freedom of conscience realization at the stage where the formation of conscience externally expressed and realized, as such, may be restricted by law in a case where it violates legal order itself as a relative freedom or conflicts with other constitutional values. However, the duty of military service, one of the citizens’ national defense duty under Article 39(1) of the Constitution, is the most fundamental requirement for the existence of a national community.