Denying a Security-Services Permit Based on an Old Conviction
B (34) applies to the chief of police for a permit to operate a 20-person private security company. B served six years in a special forces unit, holds a level-2 security instructor certificate, and has no disqualification listed in the Security Services Industry Act. In 2017, he was fined 1 million won for a fight at a bar (simple assault) and completed a 40-hour anger-management program. The police chief denies the permit, stating that B 'lacks social credibility' and that a security company 'must be beyond reproach.' The denial letter cites only that phrase and does not mention the 2017 conviction or the hearing. B requested a hearing; the police chief says none is required because the denial is 'discretionary.' B's 20 employees have signed support letters. The application is otherwise complete.
1. Identify the legal errors in the denial, focusing on the difference between a permit with binding statutory requirements and a discretionary permit.
Read the worked answer
The first error is conflating a regulated permit with an open-ended character test. If the Security Services Industry Act lists disqualifications and B meets them, the police cannot add an unlisted ground such as 'lacks social credibility' without a statutory basis. Even where the Act gives discretion, discretion is not freedom. The denial must rest on facts that are rationally connected to the risk of running a 20-person security company. A single 2017 simple-assault fine, followed by a 40-hour program and six years without a similar offense, is weak evidence of current unfitness. The phrase 'must be beyond reproach' is not a legal standard and would be hard to apply consistently. The police should compare B with similarly situated applicants. If the real concern is the use of force or firearms, the Act may allow conditions, training, or supervision rather than denial.
2. What procedural rights does B have, and does the absence of a hearing invalidate the denial?
Read the worked answer
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a disposition that restricts rights must give reasons, and the applicant must have an opportunity to submit opinions in the cases the Act specifies. A formal hearing is required only when the relevant law provides for it, so the chief's blanket statement that 'no hearing is required because this is discretionary' is too broad. The more serious defect is the one-line reason. B cannot effectively challenge a decision that does not disclose the facts or the legal basis. B may file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation and seek suspension of execution. The court will ask whether the procedural defect actually prejudiced B. Here it likely did, because B had support letters and rehabilitation evidence that the chief never addressed. The absence of a hearing is not automatically fatal, but the absence of reasons and consideration is a strong ground to remand.
3. How should the police chief's office revise the decision to withstand judicial review?
Read the worked answer
The office should issue a new, reasoned decision. It should state the 2017 conviction, the sentence, the date, and why it remains relevant-or explain why it does not. It should address B's military service, instructor certificate, completion of the anger-management program, the six-year gap, and the support letters. It should obtain a risk assessment and consider conditions such as a probationary period, additional training, reporting, or a limit on armed assignments. If the office still denies, it must show why those conditions would not protect the public and why denial is proportionate. It should also check consistency with other permits granted in the same period. The record should show that B had a chance to respond. This does not guarantee a permit, but it makes the decision defensible and fair.