beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act, which allows only the visually impaired persons to engage in an act of massage, violates the Constitution because it excessively infringes on the freedom of occupation of marina branch officers who are not the visually impaired persons, and infringes on the right to pursue happiness of the general public who can choose massage and marina services.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground of the above provision of the law as unconstitutional.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine requires the visually impaired to enjoy the viewing of life for the visually impaired 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 that the visually disabled can choose, the fact that other alternatives are not sufficient to guarantee the livelihood of the visually disabled, and the fact that it is necessary to take measures to give preferential treatment to the visually disabled in order to realize substantial equality as a minority who has been discriminated against in daily life, such as education and employment, etc., it is not contrary to the least infringement doctrine, but due to the public interest such as the right of survival of the visually disabled who will be obtained by the legal provisions of this case.