logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.08.31 2018고단634
의료법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a massage procedure in the trade name of “D” on Kim Jong-si C and the second floor.

No person who is not qualified as a massage doctor shall establish a massage place, and the defendant shall not be qualified as a massage doctor.

From May 2, 2015 to March 16, 2018, the Defendant installed a facility for massage, and employed a male guest free from his/her name, and had many unspecified customers engage in massage in the method of spreading off to his/her fingers and blue joints with fingers and blue parts, and received KRW 30,000 won per customer in return. The Defendant in collusion with husband E and received KRW 100,000 from 30,000 won per customer. On March 16, 2018, the Defendant in collusion with the husband E, and the Defendant entrusted the management of the said business, while having the male customer enter the said business room with KRW 80,000,00,000,000, and had a foreign non-qualified person complete the transfer of his/her nationality by means of the above method.

Accordingly, the Defendant established a massage place without qualification as a massage doctor.

Summary of Evidence

The application of the law of the police statement protocol to F of the suspect interrogation protocol to the defendant's legal statement E

1. Article 87(1)2, Article 82(3), and Article 33(2)1 of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even while the investigation and trial were underway with respect to the defendant engaged in the same illegal business at another place, the fact that the defendant continued the illegal business in this case, and the economic benefits that the defendant gained for the illegal business were considered.

arrow