Whether it constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes where five dental services are extracted from one patient for three months or more; and

Even if he/she has extracted five dental services from one person over a three-month period, if it requires a long period of time due to its nature, the same fact alone cannot be deemed as having continuously and repeatedly performed medical services, and thus, it does not constitute a business of medical treatment 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 of the Medical Service Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do723 Decided May 29, 1984 (Article 5(8)110, No. 733, 1232 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes)

Defendant

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

The 90-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

The seized limit feea, one safafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafa, eight vulnerable capseafafafafafafae, one place for dental use, and four safababaf (a

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a medical person, the Defendant performed dental treatment activities, such as: (a) between the first and second on July 1988 and the first and fourth on October 10 of the same year; (b) between the building of the building of the building of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (detailed address omitted); (c) using a stoptoptopy (excluding a tool extracted by it); (d) using a stoptopum (mathy), the weak, and the injection equipment; and (e) using one stoptopum of the above Nonindicted Party 1, including collecting KRW 10,000 from the above Nonindicted Party 1 as medical expenses.

The facts of the judgment

1. Statement to the same effect as the defendant's judgment in court;

1. Statement to the same effect as indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused of the prosecutor;

1. Each statement to the same effect as the facts indicated in the judgment in the statement of Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by the judicial police assistant;

1. As a whole, there is evidence that the search and seizure limit safafafafafa, one safafafafafa, eight vulnerable caps, one safafafafafafafa, four safafabafafa, and four safabafafafa

The defendant's act of judgment shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won within the limit of the amount prescribed in Article 66 subparagraph 3 of the Medical Service Act and the former part of the main sentence of Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act, and if the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of 5,000 won into one day under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant shall be punished by a fine of 30 days under Article 57 of the Criminal Act, including the number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of the above fine of 90 days under Article 57 of the Criminal Act, and shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse and one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, and four (No. 1 through 6), one, one, and another, a person other than the offender shall be confiscated under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act and shall be punished by a fine of 3.

The summary of the violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, which is the primary facts of the instant case, is that the Defendant, despite being not a medical person, was engaged in dental practice from July 1, 198 to October 1 of the same year. However, considering the various evidences presented in the instant case, even if the Defendant did not perform the above-mentioned dental practice for three months from around the first day to around the first day of the same year, Nonindicted 1’s house in Chungcheongnam-Namnam-gun (detailed address omitted), using spawn for profit-making purposes, such as spawn (spath extracted), spathn, spathn, spathn, spathn, and spathn (one spathn and one spathn), spathn from the above Nonindicted 1’s upper part of the instant case’s dental laboratory, and as such, it appears that the Defendant did not have any other evidence to prove that the Defendant committed the above-mentioned dental act for more than 15 months.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Yang Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)