Constitutional Court Rules Unconstitutional to Punish Group Cafeteria Nutritionists for 'Failure to Perform Duties'

Majority Opinion: "No Specific and Useful Criteria for Punishable Cases Derived"
Opposing Opinion: "Punishment Provisions Are Not Excessive Compared to Public Interest"

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision punishing those who violate the duties of nutritionists working in collective catering facilities is unconstitutional.

On the 23rd, Yoon Nam-seok, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, is seated with the constitutional justices at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

On the 27th, the Constitutional Court announced that it decided the constitutional complaint case regarding the provision in the Food Sanitation Act that punishes violations of the duties of nutritionists in collective catering facilities as unconstitutional by a 7 to 2 majority.

A, who holds a nutritionist license, simultaneously contracted as a nutritionist at several kindergartens from June 2015 to October 2016, visiting each kindergarten about once a month to inspect records related to cafeteria meals. However, the current Food Sanitation Act stipulates that nutritionists must perform tasks such as menu planning, meal inspection, and distribution management at collective catering facilities. Collective catering facilities refer to non-profit meal service facilities that continuously provide food to 50 or more people at once, such as cafeterias.

The prosecution indicted A on charges of failing to perform the duties of a nutritionist under the Food Sanitation Act. All three trials recognized A's guilt and sentenced A to a fine of 1 million won. In May 2019, A filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the relevant provision of the Food Sanitation Act was unconstitutional, and the Constitutional Court ruled it unconstitutional, stating that "the provision has problems of being overly broad and vague."

The Constitutional Court stated, "The duty performance provision broadly defines the duties of nutritionists working in collective catering facilities, but the scope of punishment stipulated in the penal provision is excessively broad," adding, "While it is somewhat possible to infer the specific content of the nutritionist's duties, it is not possible to derive concrete and useful standards to determine the subjects of punishment, nor is there established precedent from courts on this matter."

The Court further stated, "Depending on the case, it may be unclear in what circumstances a nutritionist is considered to have failed to perform the duties stipulated in the duty performance provision," and "The term 'violation' as defined in the penal provision is neither concrete nor useful, violating the principle of clarity under the rule of law."