All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The fact that the defendant (misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the charge) committed an act as stated in the facts charged is acknowledged, but such act is not an act requiring medical expertise, but an act is not likely to cause harm to human life, body, or general health and sanitation, and thus, it is not a medical practice.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. Prosecutor 1) In order to treat, mitigate, or prevent disease, the Defendant is guilty (not guilty part) and the E sets (hereinafter “instant organization”) against the patient.

Although the instant body does not have the function of preventing or treating objectively diseases, the instant body constitutes a medical device. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged. (B) The lower court rendered a judgment on the charge of unfair sentencing (a fine of one million won is too uneased and unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant’s act as stated in the facts charged constituted medical practice under the Medical Service Act.

If the above judgment of the court below is examined closely in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant, so the defendant's assertion of mistake

B. In light of the structure and form of the instant body, the method of use, and the contents stated in the packaging of the instant body, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the prosecutor’s assertion, the said body is merely merely an organization manufactured with health supplies, and is affected by disease.