On November 24, 2010, the Defendant was acquitted on the charge of violating the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Business Operators) by the Seoul Western District Court (2010dan933), but the prosecution appealed on May 19, 201, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of one million won for one year in imprisonment by the Seoul Western District Court (2010No1412). The Defendant appealed on this, and the final appeal of the Supreme Court (201Do7288) is pending.

1. For a period of four and five years, the Defendant provided d with d’s brokerage from “F” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul operated by D to unspecified customers with d’, and provided d with telephone conversations on January 14, 2010, and promised to provide d’s eyebrow surgery from “F” on January 20, 2010 to “F” to provide d’s eyebrow surgery on the day.

On January 20, 2010, at the inner room located in “F” on January 16:15, 2010, the Defendant was exposed to the police officer in charge of conducting the eyebrow surgery. On the police investigation, the Defendant falsely stated that G was subject to the eyebrow surgery rather than providing G with the eyebrow surgery, and that D already stated that “the statement made by the police is no superior to the reversal of the statement made by the police.” At the prosecution, the Defendant instructed D to the effect that “A person who has already made a false statement that there is no room to arrange the eyebrow surgery,” and that D made such a false statement at the prosecution.

After that, while the defendant was prosecuted and tried for a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers) on May 10, 2010, the defendant thought that D, which was adopted as a witness of the above judgment, should give a perjury. On July 2010, 2010, the defendant called D and called D to "It is the fact that it was the fact that she made a false statement, and the fact that G made a false promise, and that it was the testimony that it was made by the police. It is no meaningful that the statement made by the police was kept in court as stated falsely by the prosecutor."