A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant’s act of having an employee of D “D” engage in the procedure to recover from the crush’s hand and appearance is merely merely an operation for recovery, and it is difficult to view it as an “math” as a medical practice under the Medical Service Act. 2) Article 82 of the Medical Service Act does not clearly stipulate the meaning of “math”, and thus contravenes the principle of clarity.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion that the Defendant’s act does not constitute massage under the Medical Service Act is “an act to the extent that the Defendant’s act is “an act to the extent of cutting down the body, such as satisfying, taking, satisfying, cutting, or satisfying with hand or special apparatus for the purpose of improving the health of the people, or using the satfys or satfys, such as satfy, etc., and physical treatment of the human body pursuant to the use of electricity apparatus, or other self-catfying method, etc., and it is not limited to only the act that could cause harm to health and sanitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5531, May 14, 2009). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, according to evidence duly adopted by the lower court, the Defendant’s act of cutting off the body of customers or satfy by having his employees use of his body.