The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) With respect to unlicensed medical practice, the Defendant did not say that the Defendant would commit an act of oriental medical treatment, such as medical treatment, to the victim, and merely did so if he or she received tensions, etc., it can be mitigated. Accordingly, this does not constitute an act of oriental medical treatment inasmuch as he or she sold “H” and did not receive money in the incidental service level. 2) As to the injury resulting from rape, the Defendant did not commit rape inasmuch as he or she had sexual intercourse under an agreement with the victim under the influence of drinking.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and order to complete sexual assault treatment programs for forty hours) is an excessive and unfair sentence.

C. In light of the fact that the improper defendant of the disclosure and notification order was 60 second half and there was no record of sex offense, the disclosure and notification order of personal information for three years ordered to the defendant, even though there was no risk of re-offending.

2. Determination

A. Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act prohibits a person, other than a medical person, from performing medical practice. Medical practice refers to the prevention or treatment of a disease caused by diagnosis, examination, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment based on medical expertise, and other acts that may cause harm to public health and hygiene if performed by a medical person. Here, “the risk of harm to public health and hygiene if performed by a medical person” is sufficient to be abstractly dangerous, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no harm to public health and hygiene on the ground that there is no specific risk to a patient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5964, May 10, 2012). The lower court recognized by evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendant, namely, the Defendant’s victim.