Private combat boots resold, prosecution deferred by prosecution... Constitutional Court orders "cancellation"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

원본보기 아이콘

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Constitutional Court has ruled to cancel the prosecution suspension decision made by the prosecution against a person who attempted to sell privately made combat boots online, citing a violation of the Military Uniform Control Act.

Although the key issue was whether the privately made combat boots qualified as 'similar military uniforms,' the prosecution was judged to have exercised its prosecutorial power arbitrarily without strict judgment.

On the 2nd, the Constitutional Court announced that it unanimously accepted the constitutional complaint filed by Mr. A, who was caught trying to sell privately made combat boots, requesting the cancellation of the prosecution suspension decision by the prosecution.

In April 2018, Mr. A posted sales listings and photos on an online cafe to resell privately made combat boots purchased from an online shopping mall. The prosecution considered Mr. A to have violated the "Act on the Control of Military Uniforms and Military Equipment" (Military Uniform Control Act) but took mitigating factors into account and issued a prosecution suspension decision in June 2018. Although he was not brought to trial, it was effectively recognized that he was guilty.

In particular, the prosecution regarded the privately made combat boots Mr. A tried to sell as corresponding to similar military uniforms. Mr. A filed a constitutional complaint seeking cancellation, arguing that the prosecution’s decision infringed on his right to pursue happiness and other rights.

The Constitutional Court found it difficult to recognize the privately made combat boots Mr. A intended to sell as 'similar military uniforms' as defined by the Military Uniform Control Act.

The Military Uniform Control Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, or possession for sale of similar military uniforms that are difficult to distinguish due to similarities in form and structure with military uniforms. The detailed regulation, the Military Uniform Regulation, describes combat boots with a simple illustration and explains their shape as "having a long shaft and circular holes or loops protruding on both sides."

The Constitutional Court pointed out that these combat boot regulations are quite broad, noting that black boots shaped like combat boots are already commonly distributed in the market, and it is difficult to determine what constitutes the unique appearance of military combat boots based solely on the legal description.

Considering this, the justices judged that the privately made combat boots Mr. A intended to sell had no 'military' or Ministry of National Defense markings, and that the materials wrapping the ankle and the zippers showed a significant difference in appearance from the combat boots currently supplied by the military.

The Constitutional Court stated, "Although it is difficult to recognize the combat boots in this case as similar military uniforms, the prosecution acknowledged the petitioner’s violation of the Military Uniform Control Act and issued a prosecution suspension decision," adding, "This is a serious legal error that infringes on the petitioner’s constitutionally guaranteed rights to equality and the pursuit of happiness."

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.