The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is merely to inform the victim of the method for informing him of the method, and it does not constitute a medical practice under the Medical Service Act, and the defendant has not administered the victim's unclaimed drugs using the injection equipment.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding medical practice in the Medical Service Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance court’s evidence.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings in the appellate trial, the appellate court does not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Meanwhile, where the witness’s statement is consistent in the main part, the credibility of the statement should not be denied without permission on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is not somewhat inconsistent (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1212, Aug. 20, 209, etc.).