의료법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. Where a judgment becomes final and conclusive with respect to a part of the crime which is a single comprehensive crime, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered by the final and conclusive judgment as to the crime committed prior to the time a judgment of fact-finding court is rendered (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11649, Jan. 16, 2014). B. B. B. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, ex officio is examined.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the part regarding the violation of the Medical Service Act (criminal facts stated in the judgment below) due to the establishment of an unqualified massage clinic (Article 2(2)) is that the Defendant, without qualification, opened a massage clinic with the trade name “C” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from April 10, 2014 to “C” without qualification.
Meanwhile, according to the records, the Defendant is a person who operates a massage procedure in the Seoul Central District Court on July 8, 2015 with the trade name “C” from the fourth floor of the building B in Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court.
From April 10, 2014 to February 11, 2015, the Defendant, without obtaining certification as a massage club qualification, installed a school bed and sprink, etc. at the above business establishment, employed F (34 tax) without qualifications as a massage, and installed a non-qualified massage clinic and operated it by opening a non-qualified massage clinic in order to raise sales of KRW 1.5 million average monthly sales of KRW 1,500,000 per person by receiving payment of KRW 30,000 per 1,50,000 per day to unspecified customers visiting the above business.
“The Defendant’s appeal was dismissed by the same court on September 24, 2015 (2015No. 2839) on the grounds of criminal facts, but the Defendant filed a new appeal with the Supreme Court on December 8, 2015 (2015do 16034). However, the Defendant received a decision to dismiss the appeal on December 8, 2015 (2015do 16034).