An eight-page set of answers that works through four constitutional argumentation problems in turn, from the least-restrictive-means reasoning in the ruling that upheld supply-area restrictions on takju (Korean rice wine, makgeolli) to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. The first problem examines the 1999 Constitutional Court decision that upheld the takju supply-area restriction in Article 5(3) of the Liquor Tax Act, specifically the part that cited, as grounds for minimal infringement, a proviso allowing the regional tax office commissioner to change the supply area only within the same jurisdiction.

The answer separately addresses identifying the issue, the subject of the least-restrictive-means review, and whether the fact that an even more restrictive system with no possibility of change is conceivable is a proper argument; it criticizes the restriction by noting that regional limits justified by takju spoiling and deteriorating no longer fit, given advances in sealing and distribution technology, and that less restrictive means exist, such as labeling expiry dates or inspecting storage practices.

The second problem concerns a hypothetical law punishing anyone who questions the state's official disease-control information. After distinguishing epistemic reasons, which bear on whether something is true or false, from non-epistemic reasons, which compel behavior by attaching disadvantages, it concludes that mixing the two leads to violations of fundamental rights and weakens the logical basis of legislation. The third problem discusses whether using a hairdresser's labor and going to a different salon if you are not satisfied amounts to treating a person merely as a means, in light of two requirements: being used only as a tool, and the absence of a right to refuse.

The last problem, in a case where A and B have each filed assault complaints against the other, examines the problem with using the words 'victim' and 'perpetrator' before judgment, and the constitutional principles on distinguishing positive from negative facts and on the burden of proof, in an introduction-body-conclusion format, explaining the dual character of the presumption of innocence in Article 27(4) of the Constitution as both a rule and a principle.

It is a good reference for essay assignments and end-of-term written exams in constitutional law, philosophy of law and legal argumentation classes. In particular, the way the first problem first separates identifying the issue from the subject of the least-restrictive-means review is good practice for picking out the key question when reading Constitutional Court decisions, and the second and third problems are examples of compressed writing that links definitions directly to conclusions in a short space.

Each problem is followed by references, mostly doctoral dissertations, which makes it easy to find material for further reading. When I read legal answers, I tend to look at the connections between sentences before the conclusion, and I struggled quite a bit with this topic when I first studied it. Least restrictive means easily brings to mind only the question of whether a less restrictive alternative exists, but this problem asks why the fact that a more restrictive system is conceivable cannot be a ground for constitutionality.

Here is how I worked it out. If you have ever looked for your hometown makgeolli in a supermarket while traveling and come back empty-handed, you will naturally think that clearly labeling expiry dates and checking refrigeration would be less inconvenient for both consumers and breweries than locking down where it can be sold. I was glad the answer pinpoints exactly this: the comparison should be with a better alternative, not a worse system.

Following the material and looking up the related doctoral dissertations, I felt that all four problems are tied together by one idea: if the state wants to compel something, it has to give reasons. Students often get stuck on the last problem, because unless you notice that the phrase 'the victim's consistent testimony' already contains the conclusion, the judge's reasoning looks plausible. When using this for your own assignment, borrow the answers' framework of three steps for each problem (explaining the concept, applying it to the facts and critiquing), and be sure to rewrite the last problem in your own sentences, since some paragraphs appear close to the wording of the references.

Reading it with the original decision open beside it doubles the benefit.