The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant refused to enlist in active duty service in accordance with the freedom of conscience guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporated as part of domestic law. The Defendant’s refusal to enlist in active duty service constitutes a religious conscience and constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

2. Determination 1) The fact that fundamental rights under the Constitution should be exercised within the scope that enables a common life with others within a community and does not endanger other constitutional values and the legal order of the State is a fundamental limitation of the exercise of all fundamental rights, including the freedom of conscience. Thus, in a case where there exists a constitutional legal interest to justify the restriction, the freedom of conscience realization should also be a relative freedom that can be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution. However, Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act is established to embody the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen, and where the State’s security is not ensured because the duty of military service is not fulfilled properly, the dignity and value of the citizen cannot be guaranteed. Accordingly, the duty of military service is ultimately aimed at guaranteeing the dignity and value of the entire citizen, and the defendant’s freedom of conscience is more superior to the above constitutional legal interest, and thus, even if the defendant’s right to conscientious objection is restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution for the benefit of the Constitution, this constitutes justifiable restriction permitted by the Defendant’s right to be limited (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do194.