2. Determination

가. 관련법리 사람의 질병을 치료하는 의료행위는 의료법에서 정한 의료인이 아니면 이를 할 수 없는 것이고, 피고인이 질병치료를 위하여 인체에 벌침, 쑥뜸 등의 시술행위를 하였다면 그것이 의료기구, 또는 의약품에 해당하는 여부나 실제로 그 효험이 있는 여부에 관계없이 이는 금지된 의료행위를 한 것에 해당한다

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do1892 delivered on October 13, 1992). B.

Judgment

In addition to the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act prohibits all medical practices conducted by non-medical personnel in order to protect the right to life and health of the people, and perform the State’s duty to protect public health (see Constitutional Court Order 2001Hun-Ma370, Dec. 18, 2002). Medical practices prohibited under the above provision are not limited to commercial-use medical practices or medical practices related to the consideration thereof; ② in the event of a crying procedure, the patient is likely to be injured or dead due to a crycopic reaction even if low ratio, and thus, considering the risk caused by side effects, it is reasonable to view that the patient’s life, physical hazard, and risks to general public health arise or increases, and ③ there is no qualification for medical personnel to treat the patient as alleged by the defendant in Hyundai Medical Service Act.