The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the right to refuse military service is inherent in the freedom of conscience and religion as stipulated under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution. As such, the refusal of military service based on the Defendant’s religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act. Moreover, the Defendant recognizes that the refusal of military service based on religious conscience constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act and intends to perform alternative military service, and there is no intention to evade enlistment for the Defendant.

2. The duty of military service is to ultimately ensure the dignity and value of all citizens as human beings.

Therefore, the State’s criminal punishment against so-called conscientious objectors in accordance with reasonable legislative discretion cannot be deemed as going against Articles 10, 19, and 37(2) of the Constitution, which unfairly infringes on the freedom of conscience, or violates Article 6(1) of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Such conscientious objection does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2965, Jul. 15, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7941, Dec. 27, 2007). The grounds for appeal inconsistent therewith cannot be accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.