Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person other than a medical person shall perform medical practice.

Nevertheless, on January 7, 2018, the Defendant, not medical personnel, provided the cosmetic retail store (C) operated by the Defendant located B 1st of the Dongdong-dong-si, and provided medical treatment to the customer D (here, 38 years of age) with the eyebrow reflection procedure, the Bobrow removal procedure, such as Boscopic surgery, and the Boscopic removal procedure for the eyebrow removal, respectively, and received 300,000 won as the price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for filing complaints and investigation reports;

1. Article 87 (1) 2 of the Medical Service Act and Article 27 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense (excluding punishment);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act of the Reasons for the Sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act prohibits a licenseless medical practice strictly by allowing only medical personnel to perform medical practice, and allowing only licensed medical personnel to perform medical practice.

Here, the term "medical practice" means the act of preventing or treating diseases caused by diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, or outpatient treatment with the experience and function based on medical expertise, and other acts that are likely to cause harm to health unless performed by medical personnel.

“The possibility of causing harm to health and hygiene if the medical personnel do not perform” is sufficient to be abstractly dangerous, and thus, the patient did not have any danger in detail.

No harm may be caused to health and sanitation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5964, May 10, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2017Do19422, Jun. 19, 2018). The act of a defendant in this case is accompanied by the invasion on the body of a victim, and is in need of experience and function based on medical expertise, and if not, it is likely to cause harm to health and sanitation.