The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as a believers witness, refused to enlist in the army according to his religious conscience. Since the right to refuse military service according to a religious conscience is derived pursuant to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant is “justifiable cause” to refuse enlistment under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and thus, even if the Defendant refused enlistment, it does not constitute a violation of the Military Service Act even if he refused enlistment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances and legal principles acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the refusal by the defendant to enlist according to his religious conscience does not constitute “justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

① “Justifiable cause” under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, which is a punishment provision for evading enlistment, is, in principle, premised on the existence of an abstract military service and the recognition of its performance. However, it refers to the reason why the nonperformance of the military service specified by the decision of the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, such as illness, is not attributable to a person who has failed to perform the military service. Ultimately, military service is aimed at ensuring the dignity and value of all citizens as a human being, and thus, the Defendant’s freedom of conscience is superior to the above constitutional legal interest. As a result, even if the Defendant’s act is based on a religious conscience, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a justifiable cause under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, and the freedom of conscience of the Defendant is restricted pursuant to Article 37(