A. Although it is recognized that the Defendant committed an act in the facts charged by misunderstanding of the legal principles, such an act constitutes an exception under Article 33(1)2 and 5 of the Medical Service Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In principle, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles that the Medical Service Act allows a medical person to engage in the medical service within a medical institution established by a medical person to perform such medical service outside the medical institution is due to the deterioration of the quality of medical service and the infringement of the patient’s right to receive adequate medical treatment, etc., which would disrupt the order of medical service. The need for medical care policies to prevent any serious harm to public health and hygiene. As a type of medical practice, which cannot be provided by a medical person, means the prevention or treatment of a disease caused by the medical person’s experience and function based on medical expertise and diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, administration, or surgical treatment. In light of the above, the medical person bears the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the medical person’s duty to manage human life, body, and health. Thus, a medical person requested by a patient or his/her guardian, upon receipt of a request, shall prepare for the patient’s symptoms or circumstances in advance and provide the patient with necessary equipment, etc.