▲ The Constitutional Court of Korea
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the current law prohibiting individuals who have received prison sentences of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier for drug crimes from working as delivery drivers does not violate the Constitution.
On October 22, the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional review case regarding Article 9-2, Paragraph 1, Item 1, Subitem (c) and other provisions of the Trucking Transport Business Act, with a 6-to-3 decision upholding the law.
The applicant, identified as A, acquired a qualification for freight transport service under the Trucking Transport Business Act in March 2010, obtained a freight transport business license in August 2018, and has worked as a delivery driver.
The mayor of Geoje revoked A's freight transport service qualification in November 2021.
This decision was based on the fact that A had a prior criminal record, having been sentenced to one year in prison in 2001 for violating the Narcotics Control Act (psychotropic substances).
The Trucking Transport Business Act stipulates that individuals sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier for violating the Narcotics Control Act are prohibited from working as delivery drivers for a presidential decree-determined period of up to 20 years, and mandates the revocation of their freight transport service qualification upon violation.
A filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Geoje mayor's revocation decision, and during the proceedings, the court accepted A's argument that the relevant provision infringes on the freedom to choose an occupation, thereby filing a request for a constitutional review of the law.
However, the Constitutional Court upheld the law, ruling that it does not violate the principle against excessive restriction, given the strong addictiveness and dependence of narcotics, as well as the characteristics of the delivery service business, which involves direct contact with recipients and potential access to personal information.
The Constitutional Court explained that "the purpose of the employment restriction provision is to prevent crimes and potential accidents that could arise if an individual with a history of drug offenses commits a crime again, thereby preventing the realization of threats to the public's life, body, and property, and securing public safety and trust in delivery services," recognizing the legitimacy of the purpose and suitability of the means.
It also determined that the provision revoking employment qualifications is intended to ensure the effectiveness of the restriction provision.
Furthermore, because the presidential decree allows for a specific employment restriction period of up to 20 years by taking into account the type and gravity of the crime, as well as the length of the prison term, the court judged that individual and specific circumstances of the case can be considered.
Previously, in December 2015, the Constitutional Court issued a decision of non-conformity to the Constitution regarding a provision of the Passenger Transport Service Act that prohibited individuals sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier for violating the Narcotics Control Act from working as taxi drivers for 20 years, stating that it "excludes the possibility of considering the individuality and specificity of a specific case and excessively restricts employment qualifications for an overly long period."
The court explained that the provision subject to the current review differs from that precedent by taking into account the gravity of the offense and the risk of recidivism.
A also argued that it was unfair to apply the employment restriction provision to someone who committed a drug crime before the provision took effect; however, the Constitutional Court rejected this, stating, "How to evaluate a criminal record of violating the Narcotics Control Act can be altered by legislation according to changing realistic circumstances, such as the spread of drug crimes."
Meanwhile, Justices Kim Sang-hwan, Jung Jung-mi, and Jeong Gye-sun issued a dissenting opinion, stating, "While the public interest that this provision aims to achieve is important, it restricts freedom of occupation for an extended period without exception, excluding the possibility of reviewing individual circumstances and mitigating or lifting the employment restriction even for individuals whose risk of recidivism has significantly decreased."
They explained, "Such restrictions rather hinder rehabilitation and social reintegration, and it is difficult to see them as ultimately helpful in realizing the public interest of crime prevention," adding that the balance of legal interests is not recognized.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.