Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) allows the visually impaired persons to enjoy the circulation of their lives 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 the provision of this case is an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose, in light of the characteristics of massage business, which is easy for the visually impaired who has developed a friendly sense to be engaged in the visually disabled, to support their livelihood and to provide them with opportunities to participate in occupational activities, in addition to other types of business.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that welfare policies for the visually disabled are insufficient, it is almost the only occupation for which the visually disabled may select, that there is no other alternative to guarantee the livelihood of the visually disabled when allowing the visually disabled persons, and that the visually disabled persons need to take measures to give preferential treatment to them in order to realize substantial equality as a minority who have been discriminated against in daily life, such as education and employment, etc., it is not contrary to the least infringement doctrine, and even if comparing the public interest such as the right to life of the visually disabled who are obtained by the legal provisions of this case and the private interest such as freedom of job choice of the general public who are lost due to such legal provisions, it cannot be readily concluded that there is any imbalance between the public interest and private interest.

Therefore, the content of the instant legal provision is beyond the limit of the legislation that limits fundamental rights under Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and cannot be deemed as unconstitutional because it essentially infringes on the freedom of occupation of non-disabled persons.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1824, Mar. 25, 2010). The allegation in the grounds of appeal that the legal provision of this case is null and void cannot be accepted.

b) the Commission;