The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles, the employees of the instant establishment committed an act of massage themselves or at least an act of massage.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a crime of arranging sexual traffic due to business, but does not constitute a crime of violating the Medical Service Act due to the establishment of a place of mathic surgery by an unqualified person.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that the control police officer conducted an investigation by finding the business place of this case and inducing D to act similar to that of this case, and then the prosecution of this case is brought to the prosecution of this case, and the indictment of this case is null and void as an illegal naval investigation. However, according to the statement of D, it can be recognized that D was engaged in a similar act even before control. Thus, the defendant's above assertion by

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the "mar" stipulated in Article 82 of the Medical Service Act refers to the "mar act performed for profit" itself, or the "mar act performed for profit" defined in Article 82 of the same Act refers to the "mar act performed for the purpose of improving the people's health," and the "mar act performed for profit" as its main act, or at least "mar act" committed for the purpose of "mar act" under Article 82 of the same Act, and the following acts are duly employed by the court below in accordance with evidence of this case, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances as revealed by the court below, such as the use of electric appliances and physical therapy, and other acts conducted for the purpose of promoting the circulation of blood (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1568, Jun. 1, 201).

As can be seen, the defendant is not a massage.