The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act, which allows only the disabled persons to act in a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, violates the Constitution since it excessively infringes upon the freedom of occupation of marina branch officers, not visually disabled 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 legal provision which is unconstitutional.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “the instant legal provision”)’s purpose is to allow visual disabled persons to enjoy a view of life and to realize their right to live a decent life. As such, the legislative purpose is justifiable, and the legislative purpose is not to require space mobility and mobility compared to other types of occupation, and the instant legal provision that provides disabled persons with an opportunity to take part in vocational activities by taking advantage of the characteristics of marina business, which is easy to be seen as having been developed from the perspective of disabled persons, is an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose.

B. In light of the fact that welfare policies for persons with visual disabilities are inadequate, it is almost the only occupation that can be selected by the visually disabled persons, the fact that other alternatives are not sufficient to guarantee the livelihood of visually disabled persons if they are permitted to the visually disabled persons, and that 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, etc., in light of the principle of minimum infringement.

In addition, the public interest, such as the right to live for the visual disabled, which is gained by the legal provisions of this case.