The Constitutional Court has ruled that current laws restricting individuals with drug-related felony convictions from working as delivery drivers do not violate the constitution.
According to legal sources, the court reached a 6-3 decision on the constitutionality of Article 9-2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Freight Transport Business Act on October 25.
The case was brought by an individual, referred to as A, who obtained a qualification for freight transport in 2010 and began working as a delivery driver in 2018. However, the city of Geoje revoked A's qualification in November 2021 after discovering a prior conviction for violating drug laws, which resulted in a one-year prison sentence in 2001, before A obtained the qualification.
A contested this decision through an administrative lawsuit, leading the court to refer the case for a constitutional review, citing potential infringement on the freedom to choose a profession.
The Freight Transport Business Act stipulates that individuals sentenced to imprisonment for drug-related offenses may be barred from delivery driving for up to 20 years, with violations resulting in the cancellation of their transport qualifications.
However, the Constitutional Court noted the severe addiction and dependency associated with drugs, as well as the unique characteristics of the delivery service, which involves direct contact with customers and easy access to personal information. Considering these factors, the court found it difficult to conclude that the restrictions violate the principle of proportionality regarding freedom of occupation.
The court stated, "The purpose of the restriction is to prevent accidents that could occur if individuals with drug crime records reoffend, thereby protecting the lives, bodies, and property of citizens and ensuring public safety." It acknowledged both the legitimacy of the purpose and the appropriateness of the means employed. The court also explained that the qualification cancellation clause is essential for ensuring the effectiveness of the system.
The court clarified its decision in contrast to a previous ruling in 2015, where it deemed a blanket 20-year ban on drug offenders from taxi driving unconstitutional under the Passenger Transport Business Act.
In this case, however, the court noted that the law allows for specific restriction periods to be determined by presidential decree, taking into account the type of crime, severity, and length of sentence, thus allowing for individual circumstances.
On the other hand, three justices, including Kim Sang-hwan, Jeong Jeong-mi, and Jeong Gye-seon, dissented, arguing that imposing long-term restrictions on the occupational freedom of individuals with significantly reduced recidivism risk hinders rehabilitation and reintegration into society, ultimately failing to contribute to long-term crime prevention.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.