Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On August 2010, the Defendant employed four non-qualified massages, including Co-Defendant E, F (in the continuance of the first instance trial), G, and H (Withdrawal of a request for formal trial) with the trade name of approximately 50 square meters from the first floor of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for which he did not obtain recognition of a massage.

Around 10:50 on April 24, 201, the Defendant: (a) sought blood points, such as hair, shoulder, blue, etc., from a customer I who was employed by Co-Defendant E to find the above business establishment on April 10, 201; (b) used fingers and elbows, and received approximately KRW 80 minutes from I, and (c) received approximately 44,00 won from I, by taking advantage of fingers and elbows, etc.; and (d) the Defendant committed an act of massage for profit-making purposes without being recognized, such as taking profits of an average of KRW 500,600,000 per day through the same method for eight months from August 20, 201 to April 25, 2011.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes in co-defendant E and G of the first protocol of trial;

1. The main sentence of Article 91 of the Medical Service Act, the main sentence of Article 88, and Article 82 (1) of the same Act comprehensively providing for the relevant criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The provisions of the Medical Service Act of this case that grant qualification to the visually impaired only is unconstitutional or highly likely to be constitutional.

2. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision does not violate the Constitution on October 30, 2008, like the Constitutional Court Order 2006Hun-Ma1098, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2008Hun-Ma664, Jul. 29, 2010) and the Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ma664, Jun. 27, 2013.

[Reference to the Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga39, 2012Hun-Ma608, and 2013Hun-Ga, decided June 27, 2013]