A. The meaning of medical practice under Article 25(1) of the Medical Service Act

(b) Whether the act of therapy for the treatment of a disease constitutes medical practice;

(a) The term “medical practice” as prescribed in Article 25(1) of the Medical Service Act means the empirical and functional act such as diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, surgery, etc. based on the professional knowledge of medical science, which refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease;

B. If a patient suffering from a disease, such as catitis, was to perform a physical therapy for the purpose of treating the disease, it shall be deemed that the patient was to perform a medical practice, and therefore, if a person, other than a medical person, has engaged in a cathering procedure for profit-making purposes, he/she cannot be exempted from the liability under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes.

Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Do1942 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong1988,202) 91Do3219 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong1992,2057) 93Do153 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2683) B. Supreme Court Decision 92Do1892 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong192,3194)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 93No2968 delivered on December 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Medical practice under Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease, and refers to the act of diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, or surgery, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do153, Aug. 27, 1993). If a patient suffering from a disease such as crypitis performs the procedure for treating the disease for the purpose of treating the disease, it shall be deemed that the medical practice was conducted. Therefore, if a non-medical defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, has conducted the procedure for the purpose of profit-making, it shall not be exempted from the liability under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1892, Oct. 13, 1992).

In addition, as long as the practice of punishment constitutes a medical practice, even if the practice was conducted as a private law, it cannot be said that the practice of punishment by a person other than a medical person does not violate the social norms.

In addition, even if the defendant mispercing that the defendant's practice of sworn death does not constitute a non-licensed medical practice, it cannot be said that there is a justifiable reason.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)