Punishment Clause for 'Transferring Name to Open Mobile Phone Line'... Constitutional Court Says "Legislative Purpose is Justified"

Constitutional Opinion "Preventing Criminal Abuse of Burner Phones... Preventing Disruption of the Mobile Communication Market"
Opposing Opinion "Use of Alias Mobile Phones for Various Reasons... Not Considering Reality"

Constitutional Court Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok (center) and other constitutional justices are waiting to begin after entering the Grand Bench for the constitutional complaint and unconstitutionality law judgment held on the afternoon of the 30th of last month at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision punishing the act of providing one's name to another person to activate a mobile phone does not violate the Constitution.

On the 4th, the Constitutional Court announced that it upheld the constitutionality of Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act by a 7 (constitutional) to 2 (unconstitutional) vote in a case requesting a constitutional review, which claimed that the article violated the principle of proportionality.

A, a member of an internet cafe, received an offer around July 2018 from unknown people he met in the cafe, saying, "If you activate a prepaid phone, we will pay 20,000 won per device," and sent copies of his ID and bankbook via messenger.

The prosecution judged that A violated Article 30 of the current Telecommunications Business Act and the punishment provision in Article 97, which stipulates imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 50 million won, and brought A to trial.

However, the court requested the Constitutional Court to determine the constitutionality, stating, "The real-name verification system for telecommunications violates Article 18 of the Constitution, which guarantees the secrecy of communications, and includes within the scope of punishment even social acts that the majority of the public consider legitimate, such as parents activating mobile phones under their children's names."

The Constitutional Court ruled, "The provision under review aims to prevent the misuse of mobile phones registered under another person's name (so-called 'daepo-pon') as tools for crimes such as voice phishing and to prevent disruption of the mobile telecommunications market order, and its legislative purpose is legitimate."

It added, "It is difficult to see that there are more effective means to prevent damage caused by providing mobile communication services for others' use, and it is also hard to assume other effective means to achieve the legislative purpose. The Telecommunications Business Act minimizes infringement of basic rights by directly stipulating exceptions to the punishable acts in the law."

On the other hand, Justices Lee Seok-tae and Kim Ki-young dissented, stating, "The provision under review, which uniformly criminalizes the use of mobile phones under another person's name without considering the reality where such use occurs for various reasons such as personal relationships or economic circumstances, is an excessive regulation."

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