[1] Whether a crime of fraud is established independently for each victim in a case where a person acquires each property by deception against several victims (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of medical practice

[3] The case holding that the act of a health assistant food distributor in selling health assistant food constitutes an unlicensed medical act

[1] In the case of deception by deception against several victims, each of them shall be acquired by deception, and even if the criminal intent is a single and the method of crime is the same, the damage legal interests of each victim shall be independent, so it shall not be understood as a single comprehensive crime, and a crime of fraud shall be established independently for each victim.

[2] The term "medical practice" means the practice of prevention or treatment of diseases caused by diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment with generally accepted experience and function based on medical expertise, and other conduct which might cause harm to public health and sanitation if performed by medical personnel.

[3] The case holding that if a company operating health assistant food sales business conducts a physical examination to customers and provides them with specialized management of food and sports equipment, using a local measuring device, which is a medical device to measure customer's rate of local distribution of body and vision, and at the same time allow customers to prepare customer record cards containing inquiries of 72 items about customer's physical constitution and symptoms, and there is no result of any verification that they have efficacy to deduct them, and rather it is effective to cure only the health assistant food 5, 6 kinds with side effects such as snow death, etc., and if customers who take the above food appeal to symptoms such as clothes, mouths, snow, etc., and consulted about the change of the handling method or taking method, the act of health assistant food sales business operator's act constitutes a non-licensed medical act.

[1] Article 347 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act / [3] Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do594 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2193), Supreme Court Decision 95Do2121 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3305), Supreme Court Decision 97Do508 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2424), Supreme Court Decision 200Do189 delivered on July 7, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1911) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Do989 delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong1996, 109, 1949) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 200Do20949 delivered on May 29, 205 (Gong2009, 1919) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 200Do984989 delivered4989, May 295, 2989899, 19994, 199999.

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Yong-hoon

Seoul District Court Decision 2001No6974, 8097 Decided October 17, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The number of days under detention after an appeal is filed, which remains after subtracting the number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance included in the original sentence and the number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant could recognize all the charges of this case by deceiving the victims and deceiving the money in collusion with co-defendants of the court below by its stated method is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraud, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Supreme Court Decision 98Do3549 Decided February 12, 1999 is not appropriate in this case where the attitude of deception differs.

B. In a case where a person commits deception against several victims by deception respectively, each of them shall be a single criminal intent, and even if the method of crime is the same, the damage legal interests of each victim shall be independent, so it cannot be understood as a single crime, and an independent crime of fraud is established for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997; 2000Do1899, Jul. 7, 2000).

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below's decision that deemed the victim non-indicted 1 as having a relation of substantive concurrent crimes, not as a single comprehensive crime, but as to each of the acts of fraud of this case including the crime and non-indicted 1's fraud committed continuously under a single criminal intent from December 29, 199 to February 23, 201, is just, and it is not justified in the judgment below's other premise that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the number of crimes of fraud in the judgment below.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Medical practice refers to the prevention or treatment of diseases caused by diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment with generally accepted experience and function based on medical expertise, and other acts that may cause harm to public health and sanitation if performed by medical personnel (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2328, Jul. 13, 2001).

In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted in the first instance court, the court below affirmed the judgment below's finding that the defendant's act of purchasing food as if it were effective to cure only the 5th and six kinds of health assistance foods with side effects such as snow death, etc., and that the defendant would allow the customers who take the above food to take part in the physical quality examination and to manage specialized multiple medicines by using a local measuring device, which is a medical device, to measure the rate of distribution of the body local area and vision of the customers using the local measuring device, and to prepare customer record cards containing questions about the physical constitution and symptoms of the customers, and it did not result in any verification that the above act of selling the above food constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence and the legal principles as to the above act of selling the food without the license, and thus, it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above act of selling the food without the license, as alleged in the ground of appeal and the record.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below's decision that the defendant established a non-indicted 2 corporation and did not report under Article 4 (1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act while running door-to-door sales business under the Door-to-Door Sales Act is just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)