Whether Article 20(1) of the former Cannabis Control Act punishing the inhalement, etc. of marijuana is unconstitutional (negative)

According to Article 2(1) of the former Cannabis Control Act (repealed by Act No. 6146 of Jan. 12, 200) and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., the term "marijuana" that punishs the inhalement, etc. means "mariana", and "mariana" that are manufactured by using the marith (Savia L), its resin, and its resin or its resin as the raw material: Provided, That it is evident that "the seeds, roots, and mature mariths of the hemp plant and their products are excluded", among the above hemp plant (Saviavi L), the seeds, roots, and mature math (Savi L), whose ingredients are ingredients of narcotics operations are considerably contained in the degree of harm to the human body, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the provisions of the citizen's right to pursue happiness and the principle of prohibition of excessive restriction are violated.

Articles 2(1) and 20(1) of the former Cannabis Control Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., Act No. 6146 of Jan. 12, 200), Articles 2 subparag. 5, 61(1), 10, and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Defendant

Attorney Lee Yong-hoon

The motion to propose the unconstitutionality of this case is dismissed.

1. Article 41 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act is limited to the law subject to an application for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the law, so the application should be based on the unconstitutionality of the law itself. Of the grounds for the application for adjudication on the constitutionality of the law, Article 2 (1) of the former Cannabis Control Act (amended by Act No. 6146 of Jan. 12, 200), Article 2 (5) of the Narcotics Control Act and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., which provide that the provision of the law subject to the application for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the law against the unconstitutionality of the law itself is not against the unconstitutionality of the law, but if the court interprets each of the above provisions as applicable to marijuana other than can be seen as being called unconstitutional in the name of can only be against the principle of unconstitutionality of the unconstitutionality of the law, and there is no room for dispute over the possibility of the application for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of the law.

2. In addition, punishing the inhalement, etc. of the "mariju" in the provisions of the law subject to the request for proposal is the same as the applicant's assertion that the ingredients of anesthesia are contained in the "marijuana" are harmful to the human body. However, according to Article 2 (1) of the former Cannabis Control Act and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., the term "marijuana" subject to the request for the provision of the law refers to "marijuana (SaBS L), its resin, its resin, and any product manufactured by using its resin as the raw material: Provided, That it is evident that "the seeds, roots, and mature reduction of the hemp plant's seeds, roots, and its products are excluded from the above hemp (SaBS L), since there is no violation of the principle of prohibition of excessive restriction on the part of seeds, roots, and anesthesia, which is an anesthesia in the part other than the reduction of the mature ingredients of the above hemp plant's products, the remaining part of the application for restriction of excessive restriction is not contained in the human body.

3. Therefore, the instant application is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)