On November 1, the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not criminally punish conscientious objectors for refusing to serve in the military based on their religious, nonviolent or pacifist beliefs, but the court never mentioned conscientious objectors who refused to take part in reserve duty, which has emerged as another controversial topic.

Last June, the case of Nam, charged for violating the Reserve Forces Act by refusing to take part in reserve training, was referred to the Supreme Court along with the case of Oh Seung-heon, charged for violating the Military Service Act after refusing to join the military. The court reviewed the two cases together during a public hearing on August 30. Nam, who became a follower of Jehovah's Witness after he was discharged from the military, was forced to stand trial after refusing to respond to a notice calling him to take part in reserve exercises last year.

However, on November 1, the Supreme Court only announced a ruling on Oh's case and left Nam's case open. On June 28, the Constitutional Court also ruled that the Military Service Act was unconstitutional for it did not stipulate alternative services to replace military service, yet failed to make a decision on the Act on the Establishment of the Homeland Reserve Forces. As of November 6, there are four cases involving people who refused reserve duty pending in the Supreme Court.

Refusing reserve duty is the same as refusing military service for both are decisions based on conscience, but there are differences. Nam had already received rifle drills when he was on active duty, but later converted to Christianity. Could such a "change of conscience" be accepted as the "deep belief and firm conscience" that the court recognized as an exception to the punishment for failing to fulfill one's military duties? For instance, during the public hearing, Supreme Court Justice Park Sang-ok, who was the head judge of Nam's case, asked, "How can you interpret your actions when you served in the military and took part in rifle drills in terms of consistency?"

Nam's attorney, Yi Chang-hwa said, "The refusal to serve in the military and the refusal to take part in reserve exercises are both based on religious beliefs and should be interpreted as the same thing. People who refuse to take part in reserve duty can avoid punishment if they take part in a number of trainings, but they refuse to do so despite the repeated punishment because they have made a sincere and firm conscientious decision that they cannot take part in such exercises." According to the court's previous rulings, most of the people who refused to take part in reserve duty were fined, a weaker sentence than the ones imposed on conscientious objectors, who received a year and six months in prison.

Some people argue that we should follow the latest Supreme Court decision. Attorney Oh Du-jin said, "The Supreme Court made a judgment on the essential point of conscientious objection in the latest ruling, so the objection to reserve duty could also be recognized in line with that ruling."

The Supreme Court said, "Conscientious objectors refuse to serve in the military despite any punishment or disadvantages because serving in the military destroys the value of their existence as a human being. Forcing them to serve in the military, which involves rifle drills and military training, and criminally punishing them for failing to do so is an excessive restriction of the freedom of conscience and a threat to the essence of that freedom."

Civic groups argue that the state should give the people a choice of an alternative service to reserve duty as well as active military service.