A Study on the Constitutionality of the Prohibition of Face-to-Face Service for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases : Supreme Court 2024. 7. 18. Sentence 2022 Doo43528 En banc Decision

It is necessary to develop a discussion on whether the government's administrative measures, which restricted and prohibited face-to-face worship services by churches and ordered the closure of churches in violation of the order to prohibit worship, can be recognized for constitutional legitimacy such as freedom of religion, principle of equality, and minimum infringement. The target judgment ruled that the administrative measures that the government restricted and prohibited face-to-face worship services by churches for the purpose of preventing the spread of COVID-19 did not violate religious freedom, the appropriateness of means, and the principle of equality. The Supreme Court judged that public health and safety, such as the protection of the lives and bodies of the people, were more important than individual legal interests, and that it was difficult to say that the administrative agency did not deviate or abuse its discretion by violating the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality, and that it violated the principle of equality by discriminating only religious facilities. This article examines how the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and the restrictions and limits of freedom can be compatible by reviewing the target judgment and analyzing the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court against the U.S. government's executive order in the pandemic caused by the spread of COVID-19. The state's responsibility must absolutely respect and protect the basic rights of the people. In the future, the violation of the basic rights of the people, such as human dignity and the right to pursue happiness, under the constitution in infectious diseases similar to COVID-19 should not be repeated without restrictions. However, it is quite worrisome that the target judgment on the government's actions in the COVID-19 situation can serve as a precedent for legal recognition of legality and legitimacy. Rather than isolating the people or blocking their lives in an infectious disease situation similar to COVID-19, the government should prioritize the basic rights of the people and find effective measures and alternatives to ensure the health and life of the people while observing the minimum principles of infringement such as vaccination and social distancing.