A. Although Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “the instant provision”) which enables persons with visual disabilities to engage in massage business, which infringes on the freedom of occupation for the visually impaired and infringes on the freedom of occupation for the visually disabled, the lower court convicted him of the facts charged in this case based on the legal provision of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle. The legal provision of this case allows the visually impaired persons to enjoy the view of life and human beings.

The purpose of this case is to realize the right to enjoy a happy life, and the legislative purpose of this case is just, and it does not require space mobility and mobility in comparison with other types of occupation, and in addition, in light of the characteristics of massage business that can be easily achieved by the visually impaired who have developed awareness of crymn, the provision of this case is an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose and provide them with an opportunity to support their livelihood and participate in occupational activities.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that welfare policies for the visually disabled are insufficient, it is almost the only occupation that the visually disabled can choose, that there is no other alternative to guarantee the livelihood of the visually disabled when allowing the visually disabled persons, and that there is a need to take measures to give preferential treatment to the visually disabled persons in order to realize substantial equality as a minority who has been discriminated against in daily life, such as education and employment, etc., it does not go against the least infringement doctrine, and thus, public interest, such as the right to life of the visually disabled who will be obtained by the legal provisions of this case, and the loss therefrom.