The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine of five million won) declared by the court below against the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act prohibits a person who is not a medical person from performing medical practice, and a medical person shall not perform any medical practice other than those licensed, and Article 87-2 (2) 2 of the same Act prohibits a person who conducts medical practice without a license.

In addition, Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes provides aggravated punishment for "the act that a person other than a doctor engages in medical practice for profit in violation of Article 27 of the Medical Service Act."

However, since non-licensed medical practice is expected to repeat the same crime due to the nature of the constituent elements of the crime, in case where a person who conducts non-licensed medical practice for profit-making purposes continues to perform multiple non-licensed medical practice for a certain period under the criminal intent repeatedly and continuously, and such damage legal benefits are the same, each act should be punished by a single comprehensive crime.

(1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes constitutes a blanket crime committed under the single and continuous criminal intent. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges and deemed it as a separate crime committed under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act by deeming it as a separate crime committed under the substantive concurrent crimes by each recipient of the procedure. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of comprehensive crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.