Whether it is an inclusive crime against the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes if an unauthorized medical practice continues to be conducted for profit.

Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes is a so-called business crime, which punishs a repeated act of continuing medical practice for profit without obtaining a license under Article 25 of the Medical Service Act, and thus, if the defendant has engaged in non-licensed medical practice three times for profit-making purposes, it should be punished as a single violation of the Act, including it, and it should not be punished as a concurrent crime of violation of the Act.

Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, Article 25 of the Medical Service Act, Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 7Gohap15 decided Jan. 1, 200

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 100,000.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 1,000 into one day.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

Articles seized and recorded in the attached list (Evidence Nos. 1 through 14) shall be forfeited from the accused.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the punishment of the court below against the defendant is unreasonable, and the first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, and the second point of the grounds for appeal by the public defender and the second point of the grounds for appeal by the public defender are excessively unreasonable.

First of all, we examine the above argument of mistake of facts, and consider the defendant's statement at the second trial of the court below and all the evidence duly examined and cited by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of crime at the time of original testimony of the defendant. Therefore, the above argument is groundless.

However, it is evident that the court below sentenced the defendant to the punishment by applying the provisions of concurrent crimes in the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which had not been granted a license and medical care for three times before and after the defendant's transfer, and applying the provisions of concurrent crimes in the second sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and then reducing the amount of punishment for the defendant. Thus, Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes is a provision concerning so-called business crime which punishs repeated acts of continuing medical acts for profit-making purposes without obtaining a license under Article 25 of the Medical Service Act, and therefore, even if the defendant performed non-license and medical care for three times before and after the defendant's transfer for profit-making purposes, it should be punished as a single violation of the above Act, and it cannot be punished as a concurrent crime. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to concurrent crimes or interpretation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, a party member omitted a decision on each of the above arguments on unfair sentencing, and reverses the judgment below ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and further decides as follows.

The summary of facts and evidence against the defendant recognized as a party member is the same as that of the time of the judgment of the court below, and this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the same Act.

The court below held that since the defendant's judgment falls under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, the defendant's judgment constitutes the provision of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures, so the prescribed period of imprisonment shall be selected, and the defendant shall be punished concurrently in accordance with the relevant protocol, but since there are reasons to take into account the circumstances, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and a fine of 100,000 won within the scope of the term of punishment and amount to be mitigated under Articles 53, 55 (1) 3 and 6 of the Criminal Act, and if the defendant does not pay the above fine, he shall be confined to 1,000 won for the period converted into one day under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the same Act, and 110 days out of the number of days of detention before the sentence of the court below shall be included in the above imprisonment, and since the attached attached documents are those provided or intended to be provided in this criminal act, they do not belong to a person other than the defendant, it shall be confiscated from 34.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)