The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the removal of a contagious animal species constitutes a medical practice, it constitutes a non-licensed medical practice subject to regulation under the Medical Service Act for a medical doctor to have the assistant nurse C, who is not a medical doctor, carry out the removal of the contagious consecutive species on the left side of the patient E (hereinafter “the instant patient”).

Furthermore, the illegality of the instant procedure cannot be deemed as a justifiable act solely on the grounds that the practical difficulty in the supply and demand of nurses and the experience in the same kind of procedure is high.

Although the procedure of this case constitutes an unlicensed medical practice subject to punishment, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant who ordered C with the procedure of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. The term “medical practice” as provided by Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act as to whether the instant medical practice constitutes a medical practice means the practice of preventing or treating a disease conducted through diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment with experience and function based on medical expertise, and other conduct that might cause harm to public health and sanitation if a medical person does not perform it.

In this context, “the risk of harm to health and hygiene if a medical person is not performed,” is sufficient to do so by abstract risk, so it cannot be said that there is no danger to a patient in detail.

(2) Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “The purpose of the instant treatment is to treat a disease based on medical expertise or to prevent health and hygiene if a medical person does not perform such treatment, and the content, method, etc. of the instant treatment is to ensure that the instant treatment is likely to cause harm to health and hygiene.”