Constitutional Court to Hold Public Hearing on Medical Technician Act's 'Ban on Corporations Opening Optical Shops' on the 14th

On December 27 last year, Yoon Nam-seok, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, and the justices were waiting for the start of the constitutional review ruling on the unconstitutionality confirmation of the 'Korea-Japan Comfort Women Issue Agreement Announcement' at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] A public hearing on the constitutionality of the current legal provision that prohibits corporations from opening optical shops by allowing only licensed opticians to establish or operate optical businesses will be held at the Constitutional Court.

On the 11th, the Constitutional Court announced that a public hearing on the constitutional review request regarding Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the former Medical Technicians Act will be held on the 14th at 2 p.m. in the Grand Courtroom.

The provision under review, Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the Medical Technicians Act (regarding the registration and establishment of optical shops), states that "Only licensed opticians may prepare glasses or open optical shops selling glasses and contact lenses (hereinafter referred to as 'optical shops')." Additionally, Article 30, Paragraph 1 of the same law stipulates that violations are punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to 10 million won.

Opticians Heo and Lee established Corporation A, aimed at wholesale and retail of eyeglass frames and franchise business, and opened and operated nine optical shops as directly managed stores. They were prosecuted and, in the first trial in December 2016, sentenced to six months imprisonment with a two-year probation and 160 hours of community service. Corporation A, established by Heo, was also fined 20 million won.

Heo and others appealed the first trial verdict and, during the appeal trial, requested the court to submit a constitutional review. The court judged that the constitutionality of Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the Medical Technicians Act would determine the guilt or innocence of Heo and others, thus fulfilling the requirement of 'premise of trial' for constitutional review and finding substantial grounds to suspect unconstitutionality. Consequently, in October 2017, the court submitted the constitutional review request to the Constitutional Court.

Heo and others argue that the provision confuses the purpose of the optician licensing system with the reason for regulating the entities allowed to open optical shops. Unlike other professions, it completely prohibits corporations from opening optical shops, thereby infringing on ▲ the freedom of occupational choice of corporations composed solely of opticians, ▲ the freedom to perform the occupation of individual opticians opening corporate optical shops, ▲ equality rights, and ▲ freedom of association.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, as an interested party, argues that even if corporate optical shops are prohibited, the domestic optical market is already saturated, and consumers can choose glasses at prices cheaper than overseas, so the possibility of fundamental rights infringement is low. Conversely, allowing corporate optical shops could cause significant adverse effects on the public’s eye health and consumer welfare.

At the public hearing on the 14th, Professor Jeong Gwang-hyun of Hanyang University Law School will argue the unconstitutionality of the provision on behalf of Heo and others who requested the constitutional review, while Yoon Il-young, Ethics Director of the Korean Opticians Association, will argue for the constitutionality on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

After hearing arguments from both parties and testimonies from witnesses, the Constitutional Court plans to decide on the constitutionality of the provision.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.