The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute a medical practice because it has no adverse effects, such as infection, or there is no possibility of harm, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles which found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The term "medical practice" means the practice of prevention or treatment of diseases caused by the conduct of medical treatment, autopsy, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment with the experience and function based on medical expertise, and other conduct which might cause harm to public health and sanitation if not performed by medical personnel;

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act of literacy treatment constitutes a medical act that is likely to cause harm to public health and sanitation unless performed by a medical personnel because it is difficult to exclude side effects (complication, infection) or possibility of causing danger and injury, and thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act of literacy treatment constitutes a non-licensed medical practice and constitutes a violation of constitutional right, such as art freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of occupation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, among the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 62 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (2) of the Criminal Act) of the "Suspension of Execution" provision on the "Application of the Act and subordinate statutes" is apparent that it is a clerical error, so Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.