The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as the believers of the religious organization B, refused to enlist according to one’s conscience; and (b) thus, there is “justifiable cause” stipulated in the main sentence of Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was a religious organization B.

On October 7, 2014, the Defendant failed to enlist, without justifiable grounds, until November 20, 2014, when he received a notice of enlistment in active duty service under the name of the head of the Daejeon Chungcheongnam-gu Military Affairs Administration, that he will enlist in the Army Training Center located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si by November 17, 2014.

B. As to the so-called “ conscientious objection according to conscience,” the Constitutional Court decided that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing the act of evading enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court decided that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for the exception to punishment under the above provision, and that the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived from the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, and that even if the United Nations Commission on the Freedom of Covenant proposed recommendations, this does not have any legal binding force (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do187, Nov. 29, 2007).

(c)

The court below held that the above deliberation was conducted.