[1] Whether a doctor constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes in a case where a doctor acted in collusion with a non-medical person for the purpose of profit-making (affirmative), and the meaning of the purpose of profit-making under the said Act

[2] The meaning of medical practice

[3] The case holding that a skin scambling using a Chveing machine constitutes medical practice

[4] The scope of persons permitted to perform medical practice, and whether non-medical persons can perform part of the whole process of medical practice (negative with qualification)

[5] The meaning of "act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, and the elements for establishing a legitimate act

[1] If a doctor acted in collusion with a non-medical person for the purpose of profit-making, such act constitutes Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. Furthermore, the purpose of profit-making under the above provision is to obtain wide economic benefits, and the person who conducts non-licensed medical treatment must not necessarily be identical with the person to whom the economic benefits accrue or the person to whom the economic benefits accrue.

[2] Medical practice includes not only the act of preventing and treating diseases, but also the act of causing harm to human life, body, or public health unless performed by medical personnel with medical expertise.

[3] The case holding that the act of performing so-called so-called so-called skin manager without a doctor's license to remove the face of the patient using a cliveing clicking machine containing the clive agents of oxygen ingredients and removing the clives of the human body is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health, and thus, such act constitutes medical practice, not merely cosmeticing but also medical practice

[4] In principle, only a medical person can perform medical practice, but only a nurse, assistant nurse, clinical technician under the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, a physical examiner, a licensed occupational technician, a dental technician, a dental technician, or a licensed dental technician shall be permitted to perform medical practice under the direction of a doctor or a dentist. However, other persons shall not perform medical practice under the direction of a doctor or a dentist. Furthermore, even if a part of the whole procedure of dental practice is conducted, a non-medical person is not allowed to perform medical practice under the direction of a doctor or a dentist. The same shall also apply to the case where the actor actually has expertise or ability to perform medical practice as long as he/she does not have a license or qualification to perform medical practice.

[5] The "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and which act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and the illegality of which act is excluded shall be determined individually and reasonably under specific circumstances, under the following circumstances: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) legitimacy of the means or method of the act; (c) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) balance between the benefits of protection and the benefits of infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature of the act that does not have any other means or method other than the act.

[1] Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes / [2] Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act / [3] Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act / [4] Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act, Articles 1 and 2 of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act / [5] Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do848 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3181), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2481 delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 818) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 93Do2544 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 1745) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Do3219 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong192, 2057) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2949 delivered on August 23, 200 (Gong202, 22657 delivered on May 29, 197) 209, Supreme Court Decision 97Do39498 delivered on June 16, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon-hee et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 2003No1860 Delivered on May 14, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the first proposal

If a doctor acted in collusion with a non-medical person for the purpose of profit-making, the act constitutes Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. Furthermore, the purpose of profit-making under the above provision is to obtain wide economic benefits, and it is not necessary for a person who engages in non-licensed medical treatment to correspond with the person to whom such economic benefits accrue or the person who manages such business (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2481 delivered on March 26, 199).

In accordance with the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case in collusion with those who are not qualified to obtain a license or engage in medical practice or his auxiliary activities, which caused the patient to perform the Crystal Peing and to conduct the cryal Peing as well as the medical practice in return for the above consideration, is justified.

In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in this case as they differ from this case.

2. As to the second proposal

Medical practice includes not only prevention and treatment of diseases, but also acts that could cause harm to human life, body, or public health unless performed by medical personnel with medical expertise (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2544 delivered on May 10, 1994).

Based on the employment evidence of the court below, the defendant is found to have executed so-called so-called skin manager without a doctor's license to remove the face of patients using a cliveing device containing the clive agents of oxygen ingredients. This act is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health when a person without expertise in the physiological structure of the human body executes it. Thus, this act is not a simple cosmetic, but a medical practice.

In addition, medical practice shall be performed only by a medical person, but only by a nurse, assistant nurse, clinical technician under the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, a physical examiner, a licensed occupational technician, a dental technician, a dental technician, a licensed dental technician, and a licensed dental technician shall be permitted to conduct a medical examination or a medical examination under the instruction of a dentist (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2014 Decided August 23, 2002). However, other persons shall not perform a medical practice under the instruction of a doctor, a dentist, or a dentist. Furthermore, even if a part of the whole procedure of a doctor is conducted, a non-medical person shall not perform a medical practice as long as the act constitutes a medical practice, and the same shall also apply where the actor actually has expertise or ability to conduct a medical practice at the same level as that of a medical person, unless he/she has obtained a license or qualification to conduct a medical practice.

In the same purport, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unauthorized medical practice in the court below's decision that the defendant's act was an accomplice of unauthorized medical practice.

3. As to the third proposal

"Acts which do not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms, and which acts are legitimate acts which do not violate the social norms, and the illegality of which act is early dismissed, should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2389 delivered on April 25, 200).

Examining the record in light of the legal principles, even though so-called so-called secondary manager has considerable knowledge about the skin use, he did not have systematic knowledge about the overall medical care, and the intentions of the defendant and the council members including the defendant do not participate in the process of the procedure of the clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clive clives

In the end, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to legitimate acts in the judgment below.

4. Conclusion

All of the arguments in the grounds of appeal are rejected.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)