logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.11.01 2012노2954
의료법위반
Text

Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Although Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act, which enables the visually impaired person to have a business exclusive for the visually disabled person, violates the Constitution by infringing on the freedom of occupation and the right to pursue happiness of the visually disabled person, the court below's judgment convicting Defendant A of the facts charged in the instant case based on the relevant legal basis, is erroneous in the misapprehension

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 2 million, and a fine of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) declared by the Defendants is unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) provides that the visually impaired person may enjoy the viewing of life and human life.

Since the purpose of this study is to realize the right to enjoy a happy life, the legislative purpose is just, and in light of the characteristics of massage business, which is easy for the visually impaired who have developed a sense of promotion, it can be recognized that the legal provision of this case is an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose in order to provide them with an opportunity to support their livelihood and participate in occupational activities, by putting their massage business on the visually impaired in light of the characteristics of massage business, which is easy for the visually impaired who have developed sense of promotion.

Furthermore, in the reality that welfare policies for the visually disabled are insufficient, it is almost the only occupation that the visually disabled can choose; when allowing the visually disabled persons, other alternatives are not sufficient to guarantee the livelihood of the visually disabled persons; the visually disabled persons need to take measures to treat them favorably in order to realize substantial equality as the minority who have been discriminated in daily life, such as education and employment.

arrow