Defendant

A and B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million, respectively, in four months of imprisonment, and the defendant corporation C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million.

provided, however, that the defendant A, a.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

An incorporated association C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Corporation”) is a corporation operating Iwon in Kimpo-si, and Defendant B is the representative of the Defendant Corporation, and Defendant A was working as an assistant nurse at the above Council member.

1. At around 11:00 on January 15, 2013, Defendant A, who is not a medical person, performed an accelerator procedure with the above member’s medical device using the UNCIXPUS, a medical device, and performed medical practice to the J, the above member’s patient.

2. Defendant B, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), knew that A performed an unlicensed medical practice as above, aided and abetted the Defendant’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

3. The defendant corporation A and B committed the above violation of the Medical Service Act in relation to the defendant's business at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants A and corporations’ respective legal statements, and partial statements of Defendants B

1. Each testimony of J or K;

1. Each prosecutor and police suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The prosecutor's office or the police's statement to J or K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to filing a complaint and medical fees;

1. Article 87 (1) 2 and Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act; Defendant B of a fine: Article 87 (1) 2 and Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act; Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 91 of the Medical Service Act; Articles 87 (1) and 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act; Article 87 (1) and 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act;

1. Assistance and mitigation (Defendant B) Articles 32 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A and B);

1. The defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order (the defendant corporation) under Article 334 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act and his defense counsel was found only to have been conducted according to the direction and supervision of the above member L's intention who worked in the above member. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant should be acquitted due to the lack of intention in violation of the Medical Service Act. Thus, the above evidence is examined.