The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) did not directly conduct the procedure for cohesion with D, and the dental hygiene officer instructed the patient to conduct the procedure for cohesion.

Around January 24, 2017, D sought the defendant, and the dental hygiene doctor conducted his/her cohesion procedure. Around January 24, 2017, the defendant did not deny it in a way that D expresses an aesthetic mind.

Therefore, the recording recording recording of the current conversation cannot be recognized as the facts charged of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is erroneous.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

With respect to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor indicted the Defendant by specifying the applicable provisions as “Article 91, Article 87(1)2, and Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act” to the effect that “a dental sanitarian employed by the Defendant’s dental doctor” was “a licensed medical care.”

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and applied Articles 92, 87(1)2 and 27(1) of the Criminal Act, which are entirely irrelevant to the relevant facts charged.

Although the above applicable provisions of the court below appears to be a clerical error in the above provisions of the Medical Service Act, it is judged that the change of the provisions of the Criminal Act applied by the court below to the medical law regulations exceeds the limit of correction under Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and the judgment of the court below

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the dental sanitarian employed by the Defendant’s hospital at the time of February 2, 2016 is D.