The judgment below

Among the defendants A, B, C, D, E, H, and K, each part shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, B, C, and D shall be punished by each fine of 700.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The provision of the punishment of this case based on the misapprehension of the legal principle that enables the visually impaired persons to have a massage business exclusive, is in violation of the Constitution by infringing on the freedom of occupation and the right to pursue happiness of the visually impaired persons. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles which found guilty of the facts charged of this case pursuant to

B. Defendant on the charge of unfair sentencing sentenced by the court below

1. to 1.

4. Each fine of KRW 1 million, and each fine of KRW 500,000 for the remaining Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act providing that only the visually impaired persons can be recognized as a massage (hereinafter “instant qualification provision”) provides for “the visually impaired persons under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities” (hereinafter “instant qualification provision”).

on the basis of ① constitutional request for the protection of physically handicapped persons, the principle of welfare policies for disabled persons, etc., to ensure the livelihood of visually disabled persons, and ultimately to ensure that they can enjoy a well-being of their lives and human life.

The legislative purpose of realizing the right to enjoy a happy life is recognized, so the legitimacy of the purpose is recognized. ② Moreover, in light of the characteristics of massage business that is easy for the visually impaired who has been developed by the public to engage in the business, it is an appropriate means to achieve the above legislative purpose by providing them with an opportunity to support their livelihood and participate in occupational activities by putting on the visually impaired persons with an easy opportunity to engage in the business. ③ Although the qualification provisions of this case allowing the visually disabled persons to have a massage business exclusive, it is true that the freedom of choice of the general public is restricted due to the qualification provisions of this case, but the massage business is almost the only only occupation for the visually disabled persons.