The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers) among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “for profit” and “medical act” as prescribed in Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, or by omitting necessary judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of incomplete deliberation on basic facts for sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.