beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although Article 82 (1) of the Medical Service Act, which enables the visually disabled persons to engage in massage business, violates the Constitution by infringing on the freedom of occupation and the right to pursue happiness of the visually disabled persons, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) provides that the visually impaired person may enjoy the viewing of life and human life.
Since the purpose of this study is to realize the right to enjoy a happy life, the legislative purpose is just, and in light of the characteristics of massage business, which is easy for the visually impaired who have developed a sense of promotion, it can be recognized that the legal provision of this case is an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose in order to provide them with an opportunity to support their livelihood and participate in occupational activities, by putting their massage business on the visually impaired in light of the characteristics of massage business, which is easy for the visually impaired who have developed sense of promotion.
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, that there is no other alternative to guarantee the livelihood of the visually disabled when allowing the visually disabled persons, and that there is a need to take measures to give preferential treatment to the visually disabled persons in order to realize substantial equality as the minority who have been discriminated against in daily life, such as education and employment, etc., it does not go against the minimum infringement principle, and thus, it is lost 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.