LATEST DECISIONS
-
- 2023Hun-Ma370
-
Final decision : upheld (unconstitutionality confirmed)
Decision date : Jan 29, 2026 -
On January 29, 2026, a unanimous Court held that the act of Respondent, the warden of Jeju Prison, in refusing on February 18, 2023, on the ground that it was Saturday night, to permit an attorney visit requested by counsel for Complainant, who sought to file a petition for review of the legality of his arrest, infringed the arrestee Complainant’s right to the assistance of counsel and was therefore unconstitutional.
more
-
- 2020Hun-Ma956, 2024Hun-Ma271 (consolidated)
-
Final decision : unconstitutional, dismissed
Decision date : Jan 29, 2026 -
On January 29, 2026, the Court, in a 7-to-2 decision, held Article 189, Section (1) of the Public Official Election Act unconstitutional. The provision defines a political party eligible for allocation of proportional representation seats as one that has obtained at least three percent of the total number of valid nationwide votes in the election of proportional representation members of the National Assembly or has secured at least five seats in the election of constituency members of the National Assembly.
Two Justices (Justices Cheong Hyungsik and Cho Hanchang) filed a dissenting opinion stating that the provision does not infringe Complainants’ right to equality and other fundamental rights. Two Justices (Justices Kim Sanghwan and Jung Jungmi) filed a concurring opinion in support of the opinion of the Court.
With respect to the claim filed by Complainant Social Transformation Workers’ Party, one of Complainants, the Court unanimously dismissed the claim because it had not been registered as a political party with the National Election Commission.
more
-
- 2021Hun-Ma946
-
Final decision : rejected, dismissed
Decision date : Dec 18, 2025 -
On December 18, 2025, a unanimous Court ruled as follows.
1. The Court rejected the claim challenging the portion of the phrase “motor vehicle, etc.” in both Article 43 and the main clause of Article 80, Section (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning personal mobility devices, and challenging Article 156, Item 13 of the former Road Traffic Act. These provisions require a person intending to operate a “personal mobility device” to hold at least a license for a motorized bicycle and impose a criminal fine or other penalties for violations.
2. The Court rejected the claim challenging the portion of the phrase “bicycle, etc.” in Article 50, Section (4) of the Road Traffic Act concerning personal mobility devices, and challenging Article 156, Item 6 and Article 160, Section (2), Item 3 of the same Act insofar as they pertain to that portion. These provisions impose an obligation on a “personal mobility device” operator to ensure that both the operator and passenger wear personal protective equipment and provide for a criminal or administrative fine or other penalties for violations.
However, as to Complainants who had already obtained a regular driver’s license before the relevant Act entered into force, the Court dismissed as nonjusticiable their claims concerning the license provisions listed in 1. on the ground that those Complainants failed to satisfy the requirement of self-relatedness.
more
