Majority Opinion: "Uniform Employment Restriction Sanctions Imposed... Meeting the Requirement of Minimal Infringement"
Opposing Opinion: "For Preventing Infant Abuse and Ensuring Ethics and Trust in Daycare Centers"
Constitutional Court Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok and other constitutional justices are seated in the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 29th. [Image source=Yonhap News]
[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the law restricting individuals who have been fined for emotional child abuse crimes from operating or working at daycare centers for 10 years is unconstitutional.
On the 29th, the Constitutional Court declared certain provisions of Articles 16, 20, and 48 of the Infant Care Act unconstitutional by a 6 (unconstitutional) to 3 (constitutional) decision.
The petitioner, Mr. A, was prosecuted for violating the Child Abuse Punishment Act while working as a childcare teacher and was sentenced to a fine of 5 million won, with the sentence finalized by the Supreme Court in 2019. Mr. A filed a constitutional complaint the same year, arguing that the employment restriction provisions under the Infant Care Act "infringe on the freedom of occupation."
The Infant Care Act prohibits individuals who have been fined and whose sentence has been finalized for "emotional abuse acts that harm the mental health and development of children" from working at daycare centers for 10 years. During the same period, they are also prohibited from establishing or operating daycare centers and from re-obtaining childcare teacher qualifications.
The Constitutional Court stated, "Although it is difficult to conclude that individuals with a criminal record related to child abuse will commit the same type of crime again in the future solely based on their criminal record, the imposition of a uniform employment restriction sanction for 10 years and the absence of any opportunity for the restricted individuals to be exempted from the sanction during this period make it difficult to see that the challenged provisions meet the requirement of minimal infringement."
On the other hand, Justices Lee Seon-ae, Lee Eun-ae, and Lee Young-jin dissented, stating, "The legislative purpose is to prevent abuse of infants, ensure the happy and safe growth of children, and secure ethics and trust in daycare centers, and thus the legitimacy of the legislative purpose and the appropriateness of the means are recognized."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
