For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court cannot be deemed to violate Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act against the principle of clarity in the form of a crime. The restriction on fundamental rights pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act is in line with the principle of proportionality, and cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution, and the act of aggression is deemed to constitute medical practice under the Medical Service Act, and thus, rejected the Defendant’s allegation of the grounds for

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by applying Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of medical practice under the Medical Service Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act among the grounds for appeal is not a legitimate ground for appeal against the judgment below as provided in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's act was asserted as the grounds for appeal or as not subject to ex officio judgment by the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.