의료법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,00, and by a fine of KRW 700,000.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is too unreasonable in light of the Constitutional Court’s decision on the process leading the Defendants to commit the instant crime, the relevant penal provisions, and the attitude of the massagemen who are not visually impaired and the difference between the places of massages and the places of massages for recovery from the route, etc. (a fine of KRW 7 million is imposed on the Defendants A and a fine of KRW 2 million is imposed on the Defendants).
2. In light of the legislative purpose of the provisions of the Medical Service Act that make it possible for people with visual disabilities to obtain the qualification of a massage club and make it impossible for people with visual disabilities to open a massage clinic or a massage clinic without qualification, the crime of this case shall be deemed to be the sight of life of the visually impaired persons and human beings.
Although there is an unfavorable circumstance such as infringing the right to work for the elderly, Defendant A has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, there is no particular record of crime other than the one-time fine, Defendant B has no particular record of punishment, Defendant B also has no specific record of punishment, supply demand for services such as helping the blood cycle or cutting down the frys, but the supply of the visually impaired who acquired the qualification as a gymnasium has increased rapidly, and eventually, it is difficult to see that the value of punishment for the defendant is too large in light of the above-mentioned circumstances such as the size of the crime or the business period, etc., and in light of the above circumstances such as the age, character and behavior and environment of the defendants, the motive, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence against the defendants is too unfair, and thus, the defendants' assertion is justified.