The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, as a female and a witness, refused to train the reserve forces according to his religious conscience. This is based on the freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporated into part of the domestic law. Thus, it constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act (hereinafter “instant legal provisions”).

(2) As long as the Defendant expressed his intention that he would not respond to the call within the entire service period of the reserve forces in the future 8 years for conscience reasons at the time of the first refusal of the reserve forces training, then the refusal thereafter is a single act that pays the same result. As long as the Defendant was already punished due to the first refusal of the reserve forces training, once the Defendant was punished due to the first refusal of the mobilization training, it violates the principle prohibiting double punishment, thereby, the Defendant should be sentenced

B. In light of the unique nature of the act of conscientious objection to military service, the lower court’s sentence (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, (1) whether the exercise of fundamental rights under the Constitution falls under justifiable grounds (a) should be made within the scope that enables people to live a community with others and does not endanger other constitutional values and the law and order of the State. As such, in a case where there exists a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction, the freedom of conscience realization should be deemed as a relative freedom that can be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

However, as Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, the legal provision of this case was prepared to specify the duty of national defense of the most basic citizen as well as Article 88(1).