beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although Article 82 (1) of the Medical Service Act, which enables the visually disabled persons to engage in massage business, violates the Constitution by infringing on the freedom of occupation and the right to pursue happiness of the visually disabled persons, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below (the defendant A: a fine of one million won, the defendant B, C, and D: each of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) allows the visually impaired persons to enjoy the viewing of their lives and human beings.
Since the purpose of this article is to realize the right to enjoy a happy life, the legislative purpose is just, and in light of the characteristics of the massage business that is easy for the visually impaired who has developed a sense of promotion to be engaged, it can be recognized that the legal provision of this case is an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose in the case of the provision of this case that provides the visually impaired persons with an opportunity to support their livelihood and participate in occupational activities by monopolying the massage business.
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 the minority who have been discriminated against in daily life, such as education, employment, etc., it is not contrary to the least infringement doctrine, and the right to survival of the visually disabled persons, etc. obtained by the legal provisions of this case.