Residence

Reference domicile

2. B (***********************) and massages.

Residence

Nationality Thailand

3. C (************************) and non-service workers.

Residence

Nationality China

4.D (************************) and non-service.

Residence

Reference domicile

E (************************))

Residence

Reference domicile

In the event that the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, each of the above fines of 50,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined to the Labor House for the period of time.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Defendant A

Although Defendant A was not accredited by the competent Mayor/Do governor, Defendant A, with the trade name of 198 square meters from June 14, 201 to July 18, 201, had approximately 198 square meters, namely, "Tailand 00 Morse", and had 12 persons, such as Defendant A, employed 12 persons, including Defendant B, who visited the said business place, and had them take 65,000 won to a large number of unspecified customers who visited the said business place and took 105,00 won from 65,00 won to 105,00 won for each person, and used his/her handbow, etc., thereby establishing a massage treatment place without qualification.

2. Defendant B, C, D, and E

Although Defendant B, C, D, and D did not obtain the recognition of a massage club from the competent Mayor/Do governor, Defendant B, and D were aware of the body of customers from July 1, 201 to June 18, 201, Defendant C, and E from June 201 to June 18, 201, Defendant C and E were aware of the body of customers by using hand and arms, etc., and 50% of the price of the massage received from customers in return for that purpose without the qualification of each massage club.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the second protocol of trial;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning daily sales account books and the interior and exterior boundaries of the 00-mags of Thailand;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant A: Article 87(1)2, Article 82(3), and Article 33(2)1 of the Medical Service Act (Selection of Fines) comprehensively

Defendant B, C, D, and E respectively: the main text of Article 88 and Article 82(1) (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

The provisions of the Medical Service Act that grant qualification to the visually disabled only are unconstitutional or highly likely to be unconstitutional.

2. Determination

As the Constitutional Court Order 2006HunMa1098 Decided October 30, 2008 and the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunMa664 Decided July 29, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision does not violate the Constitution even on June 27, 2013 (see Constitutional Court Order 201HunMa39, 2012HunMa608 (Consolidation), 2013HunMa608 (Consolidation) Decided June 27, 2013).