The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not perform crusing on five occasions over five occasions in return for payment from D, and only set several guidelines on fingers at one hand, which does not constitute a crime as a justifiable act.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's violation of the Medical Service Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; i.e., D has made a concrete statement at an investigative agency on a total of five occasions from April 201 to November 201 by specifying the date, time, and place suitable for the Defendant’s invasion, as Seoul Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the Southern-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc.; and among them, on November 2011, if the Defendant had been under one procedure immediately after giving the amount of KRW 70,000,000, for each time and line, the Defendant made a statement that is inconsistent with each other; in particular, in light of the fact that the Defendant had been under an intrusion on July 7, 2011 at the residence of the Nam-gun-gun, the first half of the year and the first half of the year were actually submitted to the investigation agency, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was not a medical person or the first half of the year.

(2) In addition, considering the degree of danger of an inception, the general public’s view, the motive, purpose, method, frequency, knowledge level of the procedure, experience of the procedure, age, physical constitution, health condition, and possibility of causing side effects or risks arising from the procedure, etc., it does not violate social rules only where it is deemed to constitute an act acceptable in light of social ethics or social norms surrounding the entire legal order, by comprehensively taking into account such factors as the degree of danger of an inception, and the motive, purpose, method, and frequency of the procedure.