All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant’s assertion 1 of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is the belief of D religious organization, and the Defendant refused to undergo reserve forces training according to that 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. 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 in the future 8 years for conscience at the time of the first refusal of the training of the reserve forces, such refusal may be a single act that makes the same result. Since the Defendant was already punished due to the first refusal of the training of the reserve forces, punishing the Defendant again violates the principle of prohibition of double punishment, and thus, the Defendant is subject to a judgment of acquittal or dismissal of prosecution.

B. The sentence of 1.5 million won imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing (a fine of 1.5 million won) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Inasmuch as the exercise of fundamental rights under the Constitution, i.e., whether there exists a justifiable cause, should be carried out within a State community to the extent that it enables a common life with others 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

However, as Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, the legal provision of this case was prepared to embody the duty of national defense of the most fundamental citizen, and such duty of military service is also established.