Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months and by a fine of KRW 1,000,00.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

On July 18, 2012, at around 23:00, the Defendant: (a) placed in the fluorite-dong of Gangnam-si, and (b) placed in the inside room of the Seocho-si, Seocho-si, Suwon-si, on August 18, 2012, in order to remove eama, etc., to E, the Defendant included elusium in a injection machine, and received KRW 500,000,000 from E in return.

Accordingly, the defendant was not a medical person for profit-making purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement to the effect that the facts stated in the indictment of the defendant themselves are recognizable;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of prescriptions, etc., photographs of the victim's face and medical certificate to statutes;

1. Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment or imprisonment for a limited term);

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing below);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant's assertion on the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is merely a mere non-licensed medical practice, and the defendant does not conduct a non-licensed medical practice.

The purpose of profit-making under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes is to obtain wide economic benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do848, Oct. 9, 1992); the form of such benefit and the form of such benefit and the appropriateness thereof; and the medical practice business is to conduct medical practice business.

The term "medical practice" is not only a case where medical practice has been conducted continuously but also a case where medical practice has been conducted with repeated intention.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1896, Jan. 10, 1989; 97Do354, May 23, 1997). According to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant was engaged in the visit sales business is recognized.

(b).