The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is based on “the right to refuse military service according to one’s conscience,” which is recognized by Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to refuse military service as a witness with respect to the defendant’s refusal to perform his duty of military service. This constitutes “justifiable cause” as to failure to respond to the call-up of enlistment under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the so-called conscience objection, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a provision punishing evasion of enlistment, does not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2008HunGa22, Aug. 30, 201). The Supreme Court decided that conscientious objection according to conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” as provided for exceptional grounds for punishment under the above provision. From the provision of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Republic of Korea is a party, the right to be exempted from the application of the above provision is not derived, and even if the United Nations Covenant on the Freedom of Freedom presented a recommendation, this does not have any legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004). In light of the foregoing decision of the Constitutional Court and the purport of the decision of the Supreme Court and the purport of the decision of the Supreme Court, the defendant’s refusal of conscientious conscience and conscience does not constitute “a justifiable reason for military service”

As such, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.