A punishment for the establishment of a massage treatment establishment by a person who is not a Marine

Articles 61(3) and 30(2)1 of the Medical Service Act prohibit a person, other than a massage club, from opening a massage practice; however, Article 61(3) of the same Act does not extend the meaning of Article 61(3) to Article 66 subparag. 3 of the same Act, which is a penal provision for a person who violates Article 30(2)1 of the same Act, does not mean that Article 66(3) of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis. In addition, since there is no penal provision for the establishment of a massage practice by a person, the charges charged with opening a massage practice by a person, other than a massage association,

Article 328(1)4 and Article 61 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 30 of the Medical Service Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (89 High Court Order 1232)

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that Article 30 (2) 1 of the Medical Service Act prohibits a person who is not a medical practitioner from establishing a medical institution. Article 61 (3) of the same Act prohibits a person who is not a massage club from establishing a place of massage treatment by applying mutatis mutandis Article 30 (2) 1 of the same Act. Although Article 30 (2) 1 of the same Act provides a penal provision to a person who violates Article 66 (3) of the same Act, the above provision does not apply mutatis mutandis to the establishment of a place of massage treatment within the meaning of Article 66 (2) 3 of the same Act, the court below should not punish the person who is not a massage association under the principle of the rule of the punishment of the crime of Mad', and thus, Article 30 (2) 6 of the same Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the establishment of a place of massage treatment within the meaning of Article 60 (3) of the same Act, which prohibits the person from filing a complaint within the meaning of Article 66 (16).

Therefore, Articles 61(3) and 30(2)1 of the Medical Service Act prohibit establishment of massage treatment facilities by a person who is not a massage club. However, even if a provision of the Medical Service Act is examined, there is no explicit punishment provision against those who violate the above provision. In revising the Medical Service Act on May 10, 1986, Article 61(3) is newly established, and Article 69 is amended so that no massage can be established unless it is a massage, and even if a massage is established without the above report, it shall be reported to the Do governor. In light of the above, Article 61(3) and 30(2)1 of the Medical Service Act prohibits establishment of massage treatment facilities by a person who violates the above provision of Article 61(3) of the Medical Service Act, and thus, Article 61 of the Medical Service Act is not applicable mutatis mutandis to the act of establishing massage treatment facilities without the above report, and thus, Article 300,000 won or less shall not be applied mutatis mutandis to the act of establishing the said facilities.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 414 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Full-time (Presiding Judge) Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea