Pharmacist License Required to Open Pharmacy... Constitutional Court Rules "Pharmacist Act Constitutional"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision of the Pharmacist Act that punishes a person without a pharmacist license for hiring a pharmacist as an employee and opening a pharmacy using that pharmacist's license is constitutional.

On the 9th, the Constitutional Court announced that it made a unanimous decision by all justices to uphold the constitutionality of the provision in the Pharmacist Act that allows only pharmacists and traditional Korean medicine pharmacists to open pharmacies, in response to a constitutional complaint filed by pharmacist A, who claimed that the provision infringed on the freedom of occupation.

In 2014, A was employed by B, who was not a pharmacist, and agreed to receive a salary while opening a pharmacy using A's license. B was responsible for hiring and managing employees, paying salaries, and managing funds, effectively making B the owner of the pharmacy. However, this fact was uncovered, and A was sentenced to three years in prison with a five-year probation for violating the Pharmacist Act. A then filed a constitutional complaint arguing that the provision of the Pharmacist Act was unconstitutional, claiming that the pharmacy registration was done by the qualified person themselves and that B only bore the costs.

The Constitutional Court did not accept A's claim. The Court pointed out, "The purpose of the provision is to prevent the misuse of pharmaceuticals and risks to public health, thereby contributing to the improvement of public health," and added, "Allowing a non-pharmacist to lead the operation of a pharmacy alone could contradict this purpose." Furthermore, the Court stated, "Although the Pharmacist Act restricts the freedom of occupation of non-pharmacists, opening a pharmacy is directly related to the health, hygiene, and life of all citizens, so the private interest restricted is not considered more important than the public interest," concluding that the provision does not violate the principle of proportionality.

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