All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) In a case where a person, other than a medical technician, has performed a medical practice permitted to a medical engineer, the Medical Service Act and the Medical Technicians Act are in special relationship with each other, so the Defendants shall be subject to the Medical Service Act, not the Medical Service Act, but the Medical Technicians Act.

2) Defendant A was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the pertinent duties to prevent a violation of the Medical Service Act by a nursing assistant.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The Defendant has the same assertion as that asserted in the lower court.

The court below rejected the assertion in detail under the title "the determination of the Defendants and the defense counsel's assertion".

Examining the following circumstances in the lower judgment, the lower court’s determination that applied the Medical Service Act to the Defendants is justifiable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① Even according to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant A, not Defendant B, at the time of committing the instant crime, instructed a dental sanitarian I to take a radioactive photograph.

Defendant

B Since the medical practice was performed without a doctor's guidance, there is no room to apply the Medical Technicians Act.

This is because the above law requires medical technicians to guide medical doctors.

(2) Article 30(1)1 of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act and the main sentence of Article 9(1) shall prohibit a person, other than medical technicians, etc., from performing the duties of medical technicians, etc., and shall be punished if such person violates such duties.

Article 87(1) of the Medical Service Act does not exclude the application of Article 87(1) with respect to medical practice such as radiation photographing conducted by a person in charge of nursing who is neither a medical doctor nor a medical technician (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3587 Decided April 23, 2009).