Mandatory Seatbelt Requirement

(15-2(B) KCCR 185, 2002Hun-Ma518, October 30, 2003)

Held, the provisions of the Road Traffic Act that require driversof vehicles to wear seatbelts while driving and the state to notifydrivers of administrative fineforviolations thereof are not unconsti-

tutional.

A. Background of the Case

The Road Traffic Act obligatesdrivers of vehicles to wear seat-

belts while driving and provides for a notification procedure for thepayment of administrative fine for violations of the above requirement.

The complainant was cited by a police officer and notified to payadministrative fine in the amount of ￦30,000 while driving without wearing a seatbelt. The complainant thereupon filed a constitutional complaint in this case on the ground that the above provisions of the Road Traffic Act infringe upon the general freedom to act, thefreedom of privacy, and the freedom of conscience of the complainant.

B. Summary of the Decision

The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the pro-

visions at issue in this case are not unconstitutional.

(1) General freedom to act includes the freedom to conduct all actions and inactions and does not merely protect conduct that has value. Therefore, in the scope of its protection, a right to live in arather dangerous way is also included, and the right not to wearseatbelts falls within the scope of protection of the general freedom to act that stems from the right to pursue happiness guaranteed in Article 10 of the Constitution.

Mandating a seatbelt requirement is to protect the mutual interestsof the social community by preventing and removing the danger and the hindrance to the life and the bodily safety of citizens that may be caused by traffic accidents, by reducing the social cost incurred by the traffic accident and by maintaining traffic orders. As such, its legislative purpose is legitimate.

In addition, the provision at issue in this case is an appropriate means to achieve the above legislative purpose as there is a clear causal relation according to statistics between wearing seatbelts and the reduction of human casualty in case of traffic accidents.

Any disadvantage on the part of the driver from the mandatory seatbelt requirement while driving is a marginal burden on slight discomfort and the administrative fine imposed for failure to wear a seatbelt is in a small amount. To the contrary, the public interest the mandatory seatbelt requirement intends to achieve is promotion of the interest of the social community by protecting the life and the bodily safety of citizens and by reducing the social cost incurred by traffic accidents. Therefore, the public interest to be achieved is greater than the private interest of the complainant that is infringed thereby.

The legislators determined to mandate a seatbelt requirement based on the judgment that mere publicization of the benefits of wearing seatbelts toward the public could not achieve the legislative purpose of the protection of life and bodily safety of citizens.

The administrative fine under the Road Traffic Act is a procedurewhich provides an

opportunity to pay an administrative fine in a certain sum pursuant to an administrative measure for a relativelyminor act of violation prior to criminal proceedings therefor and allowsa prompt and simple closure to a case without criminal charge for those who pay such administrative fines. The administrative fine notification provision at issue in this case allows a closure to legalsanctions by payment of an administrative fine prior to the impositionof administrative punishment that would be a means most restrictive of the basic rights among those limiting the rights and liberties of citizens for violation of the obligation to wear seatbelts. Also, theamount of administrative fine in this case was no more than ￦30,000. Therefore, the administrative fine notification provision in this case does not excessively restrict the basic rights of the complainant, nor is it in excess of the limit upon the legislative discretion.

Then, the provisions at issue in this case do not excessively infringe upon the complainant's general freedom to act in violation of the principle of proportionality.

(2)The road utilized for general traffic falls into the realm wherethe national and local governments are responsible for managementthereof, and such realm is interrelated to the legal interests of numerousother drivers and pedestrians or the community interests. Thus, the act of driving a vehicle thereon is no longer a conduct that occurs in a personal and intimate arena. Furthermore, whether or not one should wear a seatbelt while driving a vehicle on the road is hardlyrelevant to the basic conditionsfor privacy concerning overall per-

sonality and survival of such individual or to the core area for self-

determination or the essence of personality. Therefore, as the ques-

tion of wearing a seatbelt behind the wheel while driving is nolonger a question belonging to the zone of privacy, the provisions at issue in this case do not infringe upon and the freedom of privacy of the complainant.

(3) Conscience that is protected by the Constitution is a strong and sincere voice of one's mind without acting according to whichone's existential value of personality would collapse and is not a vagueand abstract concept. The complainant may possibly debate whether or not to wear a seatbelt while driving, but, even if the complainant could not but wear a seatbelt following the debate in order to avoida sanction, this would not distort or bend the complainant's conscienceas a human being established internallynor would it cause the com-

plainant's existential value of personality to collapse. Therefore,wearing a seatbelt behind the wheel while driving does not belong to the area protected by the freedom of conscience.