[2] The scope of work of a physical clinic

[3] The case holding that the act of sticking about 6 cm in length on the left side of the patient's left side at an depth of 0.5 cm is a medical act beyond the scope of the water treatment physician's duties

[2] Under Article 2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, the scope and limitation of the duties of a physical clinic are heat treatment, electricity treatment, luminous treatment, light treatment, veterinary treatment, machinery and apparatus treatment, magys, functional training, physical correction exercise, rehabilitation training, and the use and management of equipment and medicine necessary therefor, and other physical therapy treatment. If a physical therapyr conducts medical treatment outside the above scope of duties, it shall be deemed as non-licensed medical treatment. In this case, the scope of duties for a physical therapy shall be limited to the method of physical force or self-harm treatment, and the method of physical therapy outside the human body shall not be included in the method of medical treatment or clinical treatment where there is a risk of biological or chemical change in the human body.

[3] The case holding that the act of sticking about 6 cm in length on the left side of the patient's left side at an depth of 0.5 cm is a medical act beyond the scope of the physical clinic's duties

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that Defendant 2 is a doctor, Defendant 1 conspired as a water treatment physician, Defendant 2 was unable to perform medical practice at the seat of Defendant 2’s management around 10:00, and Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 1, who is not a medical practitioner, to perform medical practice in accordance with the above direction, despite Defendant 2’s intention with expertise in the control of the infection and the control of the s.S.P., etc., and to perform s.P., Defendant 1, who is only a water treatment physician, to perform the medical practice in the manner of spreading approximately 6 cm in length to Defendant 1, who is a physical treatment physician, and Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to perform the medical practice in accordance with the above direction.

According to evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the court below acknowledged that Defendants 1 and 2 did not directly engage in the same act as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as the "medical act in this case"). Defendant 2, a doctor, used pain on the part of the patient so as to alleviate the patient's pain, and instructed Defendant 1 to use the climatic climatic climatic method connected to the climatic climatics (hereinafter referred to as the "electric climatic climatic"), and concluded that the climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic cliff, etc., the court below held that Defendant 1 did not lawfully engage in the medical act in this case under the direction of the first instance court, and that the climatic clif's clific clific clific clific clific clific clif.).

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot agree with the lower court’s determination that the instant medical practice was an act within the scope of duties of a physical clinic for the following reasons.

The main sentence of Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act provides that "no person may perform medical acts other than those licensed." Article 2 (1) of the same Act provides that "medical personnel shall be permitted to engage in medical acts other than those licensed." Article 1 of the Medical Technicians Act provides that "this Act shall provide that persons who are engaged in medical treatment or clinical tests under the instruction of a doctor or dentist (hereinafter referred to as "medical technicians"), persons who make records of medical treatment or clinical tests (hereinafter referred to as "medical technicians"), persons who are engaged in preparation and sale of dental appliances as their main duties (hereinafter referred to as "opticians"), and persons who are allowed to engage in medical treatment or clinical tests for the purpose of improving the health and medical treatment of the people." Article 2 of the same Act provides that "The purpose of this Act is to provide that medical technicians shall be limited to those who are licensed to engage in such medical acts, and medical technicians shall be limited to those who are engaged in treatment or clinical tests for the purpose of treatment or clinical treatment, and medical technicians shall be limited to those who engage in such medical treatment or clinical practice."

However, the medical act of this case as acknowledged by the court below is merely an act of posting pain only to Defendant 2, who is a doctor, but it is merely a physical therapy plant, and it is possible for Defendant 1, who is a physical therapy plant, to find the pain point at his own discretion, and sticking 0.5 cm in depth to the human body, and it can be seen as an act of sticking to the human body at a depth of about 0.5 cm from the surface surface and depending on the body. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of exposing be deemed as an act of causing harm to the human body unless performed by a medical personnel, and it cannot be viewed as an act of spreading an inner invasion to the human body, such as the medical act of this case, and it cannot be viewed as an act of spreading the human body, and it cannot be viewed as an act of treating the human body by itself as a result of an act of cutting electricity, which can cause harm to the human body, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an act of treating the human body.

Therefore, since the medical practice of this case was conducted by Defendant 1, who is merely a physical clinic outside the scope of duties that a physical clinic may perform, it shall be deemed to be an unlicensed medical practice. Thus, Defendant 2 also should be deemed to have committed a violation of the Medical Service Act in collusion with Defendant 1 by ordering Defendant 1 to conduct the medical practice of this case. However, the court below determined that the facts charged of this case are not a unlicensed medical practice on the grounds as stated in its reasoning and sentenced Defendant 1 not guilty of the facts charged of this case, and thereby erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of duties of the physical clinic under the Medical Service Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)