In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 2 shall be put on probation and shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

Seized evidence Nos. 1 through 50, 59 through 66, 53 through 58, and 67 shall be confiscated from Defendant 2, respectively.

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

Defendant 1 is a person who sells medical appliances under the trade name of “△△△△△△△△△ (English trade name omitted)” in Ansan-si ( Address 1 omitted). Although the Defendants are not medical personnel, Defendant 1 provided education to students in a way of doing sex-based medical treatment (i.e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., e., e., g., administering practice and soliciting students to sell medicines, etc. necessary for the above procedure.

Therefore, around 15:00 on June 23, 2019, the Defendants received KRW 200,000 from 9 persons, including Nonindicted 2, etc. operating skin control rooms or beauty parlors, respectively, as educational expenses. Defendant 1 provided the aforementioned Nonindicted 2, etc. with training courses on the string method, and Defendant 2, along with Defendant 2, carried out the strawing procedure in which Nonindicted 3 was injected on both sides of the snives of Nonindicted 3 among the students. From June 2018 to June 2, 2018, the Defendants engaged in the medical business for profit-making purposes even if the aforementioned method is not a medical personnel.

2. Defendant 1’s sole criminal conduct

(a) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes;

In January 2019, the Defendant: (a) in the office of the Defendant located in Ansan-si ( Address 1 omitted); (b) in the office of Nonindicted Party 2, who injected drugs on the part of Nonindicted Party 2, who operated the skin management room or beauty art room, and (c) received 2 million won in return for the injection; (b) and (c) in the office of the Defendant, who was found in the office of the Defendant, carried out a sex medical treatment for the persons who found the office and received the payment for such treatment for the purpose of profit-making, despite the fact that the Defendant was not a medical person, as described in the attached list of crimes from around that time to January 23, 2019.

(b) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

1) On May 2017, the Defendant, who is not a medical personnel, performed a divesing procedure to injecting a room after being injected on a woman’s horse, a musta, etc., on which it is impossible to identify the trade name in the Vietnam War, at a hospital operating room where it is impossible to identify the trade name in the Vietnam War.

2) On April 7, 2018, even if the Defendant is not a medical person, at the operating room of ○○○○ Hospital in Vietnam, in which her name is unknown, the Defendant performed a medical treatment to inhale fluora in the body of a woman whose name is unknown.

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 6

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 3

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Details of the Kakao Stockholm dialogue;

1. The entry and departure status and investigation report of each individual (the details of the autopsy, the site status, personal information, etc. of the relevant person);

Defendant 2 did not intend to engage in any unlawful medical practice with Defendant 1, and only was the same student as Defendant 1’s other students.

2. Determination

For the following reasons (the facts and circumstances are recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court) it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 conspiredd with Defendant 1 with Defendant 1 as a mere student, and that Defendant 2 conspiredd with Defendant 1 with regard to the illegal medical act as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article. Thus, the argument of Defendant 2 and the defense counsel is

1) Defendant 2 appears to have interfered with Nonindicted 3 directly in order to use Nonindicted 3 as the treatment model at the date, time, and place indicated in the holding No. 1 (the written statement of Nonindicted 3 and the police interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 regarding Defendant 2, which read “Nonindicted 3 invited without receiving education” at the date, time, and place indicated in the holding).

2) Of the Kakao Kakao dialogue sent by Defendant 2 to Nonindicted 3, the part “I, △△△△△△△/Defendant 1,” which appears to be an organization transmission. However, there is no special reason to indicate the above contents of the deposit guidance if Defendant 2 had been in the status of the student.

3) According to the field photographs taken at the date, time, and place under Paragraph 1 of the holding, Defendant 2 concentrated on other students who are undergoing the procedure for Defendant 2 to Nonindicted 3, and some students were going to summary and arrange the contents of the procedure, and Nonindicted 2, upon undergoing the police investigation, stated that “Defendant 2 appears to have been engaged in the same business as Defendant 1 at all times.”

4) Defendant 2, along with Defendant 1, left Vietnam with regard to the medical service as indicated in the judgment on June 1, 2018, July 20 of the same year, August 14 of the same year, and September 14 of the same year, appears to have received subsidies from Defendant 1, and there is no special reason to receive subsidies from Defendant 1 if Defendant 2 had been in the status of student.

A. Defendant 1: Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act; Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act; Addenda to the Medical Service Act (Act No. 1438, Dec. 20, 2016); Article 1 of the former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 16375, Apr. 23, 2019); Articles 87(1)2 and 27(1)(a) of the former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 16375, Apr. 23, 2019)

B. Defendant 2: Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; and choice of limited imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: The first sentence of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 38(1)3, and 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to the sum of the long-term punishments of the two crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2: Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following factors, the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration is made for the reason of sentencing)

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant 2: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendants: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Two to thirty-five years of imprisonment;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime [Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers)]

(A)types;

Food and Health Crime > Illegal Medical Practice >> (Type 2) Business Unlicensed Medical Practice

(b)the scope of recommendations and recommendations;

Basic area (one year to six years of imprisonment)

2) Concurrent crimes (Violation of Medical Service Act)

(A)types;

Food and Health Act > Unlawful Medical Act > (Types 1) simple non-licensed medical practice

(b)the scope of recommendations and recommendations;

Basic area ( Imprisonment with labor from August to two years)

3) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months to four years;

(iv) the scope of modified recommendations;

From 2 years to 4 years of imprisonment (inasmuch as the scope of recommendation is lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in law, it shall be in accordance with the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in law).

(c) Determination of sentence;

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The size of the instant crime appears to be relatively large, and the criminal acts committed in foreign countries, such as Vietnam and Japan, are also ambiguous. Defendant 1 had a risk of spreading a number of victims due to the spread of illegal medical acts as indicated in the judgment, such as the implementation of surgery education for many students. Although Defendant 1 had already been sentenced to a number of fines, Defendant 1 had already been sentenced to a multiple types of fines, even if he was given the prior notice of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment or imprisonment with prison labor, he/she did not know about the instant crime.

Defendant 1 appears to have an attitude to recognize and reflect the instant crime. Defendant 1 expressed his intent that the instant person subject to the procedure does not want to be punished against Defendant 1 in consultation with Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 7 among the persons subject to the procedure.

The sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the arguments and records of this case, including the above unfavorable circumstances, favorable circumstances, etc., such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means, results, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be comprehensively considered.

2. Defendant 2

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

One to fifteen years of imprisonment;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

(i)types;

Food and Health Crime > Illegal Medical Practice >> (Type 2) Business Unlicensed Medical Practice

(ii)the scope of recommendations and recommendations;

Basic area (one year to six years of imprisonment)

(c) Determination of sentence;

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The part of Defendant 2’s participation in the instant crime cannot be deemed to be inconsistent with that of Defendant 2’s participation. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not appear to be consistent and contradictory to the easible defense that is difficult to easily understand.

Defendant 2 expressed his intent that Non-Indicted 3 does not want to be punished against Defendant 2 in consultation with Non-Indicted 3 of the subject of the procedure. Defendant is the primary offender.

The sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the arguments and records of this case, including the above unfavorable circumstances, favorable circumstances, etc., such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means, results, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be comprehensively considered.

[Attachment]

Judges and higher-ranking

Note 1) The part of Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 2.

Note 2) The fine shall be imposed concurrently; hereinafter the same shall apply.