The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “the instant provision”) aims at achieving the right of visual disabled persons to live a life worthy of human dignity. As such, the legislative purpose is justifiable. In light of the characteristics of marina business that is easy for disabled persons to be engaged in from a visual standpoint, the instant provision can be deemed an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose. In addition, the instant provision provides disabled persons with an opportunity to support their livelihood and to participate in occupational activities by taking advantage of the characteristics of massage business that is easy for them to be engaged in, and thus, can be deemed as a means to achieve such legislative purpose.

B. In light of the fact that welfare policies for persons with visual disability are insufficient, it is almost the only occupation that can be selected by the visually disabled persons, and other alternatives are not sufficient to guarantee the livelihood of visually disabled persons when permitting persons with visual disability; visually disabled persons need to take measures to favorably treat them in order to realize substantial equality as the minority who have been discriminated against in daily life, such as education and employment. In light of the fact that there is a need to take measures to protect them in order to realize substantial equality, it is not against the least infringement doctrine, and even if comparing the private interests, such as the right to live for the disabled who are gained from the legal provisions of this case, and the freedom of job choice for the general public who are lost thereby, it cannot be readily concluded that legal interests conflict between public and private interests arise.

Therefore, the content of the instant legal provision goes beyond the bounds of the legislation that limits fundamental rights under Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and cannot be deemed to be in violation of the Constitution because it essentially infringes on the freedom of occupation of a non-permanent disabled person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1824, Mar. 25, 2010). The grounds for appeal that the instant legal provision is null and void cannot be accepted.