보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반(부정의료업자)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and a fine of one million won.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who operates a marina shop with the trade name of Gyeong-si, Gyeongbuk-si.
No person, other than an oriental medical doctor, shall engage in the business of oriental medical treatment for profit.
Nevertheless, from October 31, 2012 to December 14, 2012, the Defendant complained of the pain certificate in the above C, and received 30,000 won per one time on the pretext of lusity, and received 30,000 won per one time under the pretext of lusity.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement of each prosecutor's office and police statement concerning D;
1. Application of seizure records and list statutes;
1. Article 5 subparagraph 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of elective Public Health Crimes, Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act (generally, choice of limited imprisonment and concurrent imposition of fines);
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;
1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;
1. The defendant's crime of this case for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict punishment in that the defendant's act of medical practice without a license even though he is not an oriental medical doctor, which may cause great harm to the other party to the medical practice. The defendant committed the crime of this case with the same contents, even though he had been sentenced to a fine and a suspended execution due to the violation of the Medical Service Act and the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. The defendant committed the crime of this case, which is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as that he committed the crime of this case, although he had been sentenced to a suspended execution due to the violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. The defendant's mistake is divided into and against the defendant, and most of the defendants are not the persons who invaded other than D, and most of the defendants are likely to have managed