The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the right to conscientious objection is derived from the freedom of conscience and derived from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “Convention”), and the United Nations Commission on Freedom has the duty to relieve conscientious objectors on the ground that the government violated Article 18 of the Covenant. Such a rule has the normative character of the Constitution that functions as the standard for examination of constitutionality beyond mere legal framework, and the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the act of conscientious objection is protected from Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights that guarantees ideas, conscience, and religious freedom, and the recent Supreme Court ruling also stated that the interpretation of “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is possible. As such, the Defendant’s act of conscientious objection constitutes a right derived from the freedom of conscience under Article 18 of the Covenant and Article 19 of the Constitution, and thus, constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 8(1)8 of the Military Service Act.

2. Article 19 of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall enjoy the freedom of conscience.” From among the freedom of conscience under the Constitution, the freedom of conscience formation held in the inner realm cannot be restricted to what is, and thus, subject to absolute protection. On the other hand, the freedom of conscience realization in the stage where the formed conscience externally expressed and realized is a relative freedom and may be restricted by law in cases where it violates legal order itself or conflicts with other constitutional values. However, the duty of military service, one of the citizens’ national defense duty under Article 39(1) of the Constitution, is ultimately the most fundamental requirement for the existence of a national community.