The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principle, the Defendant, as a female witness, refused to train the reserve forces according to one’s 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 a part of domestic law, and thus, Article 15(9)1 of the Establishment of homeland Reserve Forces Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”).

2) As long as the Defendant expressed an intention that he would not respond to the call within the entire service period of the reserve forces for the next eight years for conscience at the time of the first refusal of the reserve forces training, such refusal may be a single act that makes the same result. As long as the Defendant has already been punished due to the first refusal of the reserve forces training, punishing the Defendant again is in violation of the principle of prohibition of double punishment, and thus, the Defendant should be rendered a judgment of acquittal or dismissal of prosecution.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Inasmuch as the exercise of fundamental rights under the Constitution should be carried out to the extent that it enables people to live a community with others within a State community and does not endanger other constitutional values and the legal order of the State, the exercise of all fundamental rights, including the freedom of conscience, is a fundamental limitation to the exercise of all fundamental rights. Thus, in a case where a constitutional legal interest exists to justify the restriction, the freedom of conscience realization should be deemed a relative freedom that can be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

However, as in 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 fundamental citizen, and such duty of military service is not fulfilled properly, thereby guaranteeing national security.