beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant holds a certificate of national technical qualification, and the marina course is included in the course of national technical qualification examination. The judgment of the court below which determined the Defendant as a violation of the Medical Service Act by misunderstanding the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Article 2 of the Rules on Marine (Ordinance of the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs No. 18, based on Article 82 of the Medical Service Act) provides that “the use of various veterinary methods, such as marine pressure, etc., electric appliances, or other stimulative methods to perform physical therapy against the human body” with respect to the limitation of duties of Marine. Here, the term “all kinds of marine methods” refers to physical therapy to facilitate the blood cycle by driving, stimulating, taking in custody, stimulating, or stimulating the body parts, such as the marine and skin part, etc., of a person by hand, and to recover from health by relaxing symptoms, such as pain, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6554 Decided January 29, 2004, etc.). The Defendant’s act in this case constitutes “physical surgery” with respect to the human body as seen above, and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act of entering a criminal fact in the Defendant’s original trial as constituting an act of internal and external surgery with respect to the human body, and otherwise, it is difficult to view it as an act of internal and external surgery with respect to a sports horse as alleged by the Defendant, such as massage,
In addition, the defendant has a certificate of national technical qualification for a beauty artist.
Even if a person has completed an educational course for sports massage and registered his/her business in a tax office, such circumstance does not permit massage without recognition as a massager prohibited by the Medical Service Act.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2977, Jan. 27, 2004). Accordingly, Defendant’s assertion is reasonable.