The lower court determined as follows in the instant case where the issue was whether an oriental medicine doctor’s treatment using APL (IPL, Insese L L, and Intellectual PropertyL) constitutes “medical treatment other than those licensed by an oriental medicine doctor” for treatment of skin diseases, such as miscellaneous removal, etc.

In other words, whether the use of a newly developed or manufactured medical device other than the traditional medical device or medical technology (hereinafter “medical device, etc.”) by an oriental medical doctor’s development of medical engineering constitutes “medical act other than those licensed” of an oriental medical doctor, or not, the relevant legal principle of remanding the judgment, which states that the determination should be based on a comprehensive consideration of the following: (a) whether a relevant statute prohibits the use of the relevant medical device, etc.; (b) whether the development and production principle of the relevant medical device, etc. is based on the academic principle of oriental medicine; (c) whether medical practice using the relevant medical device, etc. can be deemed for the application or application of the theories or principles of oriental medical science; and (d) whether the use of the relevant medical device, etc. does not require expertise and skills, and

Then, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that there is no explicit provision prohibiting the use of IPL by an oriental medical doctor in the relevant statutes, such as the Medical Service Act, and IPL is not based on the academic principle of oriental medicine, and medical practice using it cannot be deemed to be aimed at applying or applying the theories or principles of oriental medicine, and that, on the basis of the foregoing determination, there is a concern that the use of it by an oriental medical doctor might cause harm to public health and sanitation.