The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of one year and six months, the fine of five thousand won,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). When a person who is not a doctor engages in medical practice for profit-making purposes and is punished, imprisonment and a fine shall be concurrently imposed pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. The lower court, as prescribed by the Act, concurrently sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment and a fine.

Such illegal medical practice needs to be strictly punished for committing a crime that is likely to infringe public health and public health. The defendant has had the record of being subject to criminal punishment twice prior to the instant crime, and even during the suspended execution period due to the instant crime, there is a high possibility of criticism, and it is difficult to see that the defendant has good faith, and the defendant has suffered injury or serious side effects due to the illegal medical practice. The risk of the instant crime also resulted in the instant crime.

The court below recognized the Defendant’s crime of this case and judged the Defendant’s punishment that is less light of the statutory minimum prescribed by Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes after discretionary mitigation, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the circumstances agreed with the victim D of the crime resulting from occupational injury, etc., and there is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence of the court below.

The above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background and period of crime, contents of the defendant's medical practice, and the part and degree of the victim's injury.