[1] The case holding that repeated running of pressure, etc. under the pretext of correcting spinal imbalances to patients suffering from a park constitutes medical practice

[2] The necessity for punishment of so-called "alternative medical science"

[3] The case holding that there is no justifiable reason to believe that the act did not constitute a crime because the act did not constitute a non-licensed medical practice even though a person who performed spinal correction procedures for patients obtained a certificate of qualification as a social sports leader under the Act on Promotion, which is a government-authorized sports item

[1] The case holding that the determination of the symptoms by asking for the marcule or reading X-ray films to patients found in the course of operating the vertecule Park under the vertecule Park constitutes a diagnosis act, and therefore repeating the procedure of pressure by hand or by other means by correcting the imbalance state appearing in spine, etc. constitutes a medical act which is ultimately likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health

[2] The regulation of all acts eliminating human mental or physical suffering is an unnecessary excessive regulation, and it cannot be deemed that there is no possibility of infringing the patient's right to life or health, etc., as it is an unnecessary excessive regulation. However, since medical practice is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health unless it is implemented with experience and function based on professional knowledge, it is regulated by a person who is not a doctor to prevent such harm under Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act. Thus, even if so-called "alternative medicine" does not have any function to solve human mental or physical suffering, it goes beyond the level of relaxing pain simply, and it is highly likely to cause serious side effects that harm to human life, body, or public health. Accordingly, it cannot be easily permitted. Accordingly, it is necessary to punish medical practice under the name of so-called "vivit law", which is still likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health.

[3] The case holding that there is no justifiable reason to believe that the act did not constitute a crime because it did not constitute a non-licensed medical practice even though a person who performed spinal correction procedures for patients obtained a certificate of a certified social sports leader under the Act on Promotion, which is a government-authorized sports item

[1] Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act / [2] Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act / [3] Article 16 of the Criminal

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1325 delivered on April 7, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1907) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do906 delivered on July 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 1150), Supreme Court Decision 87Do1942 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong198, 202), Supreme Court Decision 93Do1352 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2477) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Do270 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 1011)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Choi Sejong-mo et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 99No8956 delivered on June 8, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the assertion of mistake of facts against the rules of evidence

원심이 채용한 증거들을 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 피고인은 의사가 아님에도 불구하고 신기기공원이라는 간판 아래 척추교정원을 운영하면서 로링베드, 드롭테이블, 엑스레이 판독기 등의 시설과 기구를 갖춘 뒤 주로 척추질환 등의 질병을 호소하며 찾아오는 사람들을 상대로 하여 먼저 아픈 부위와 증세를 물어보거나 환자들의 엑스레이 필름을 판독하여 척추뼈 등의 불균형 상태를 가늠하는 방법으로 진찰을 한 다음, 척추 등에 나타난 불균형 상태를 교정한다는 명목으로 로링베드 기계를 이용하여 근육을 풀어준 후 직접 손으로 만지면서 교정대의 높낮이를 이용하여 뼈가 제자리에 들어가도록 압박을 가하여 교정하거나, 구슬로 뼈가 잘못된 부분을 톡톡 쳐서 교정하거나, 양손으로 환부를 눌러주거나 비틀거나 흔들어 주어 잘못된 뼈가 제자리로 찾아가도록 하는 등의 시술을 하고 그 대가를 받아 온 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같이 채증법칙 위배나 심리미진으로 사실을 오인한 위법이 없다.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to medical practice

According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the judgment of the court below on the increase of the defendant's appearance or X-ray film to the patients suffering from the above weather park constitutes a diagnosis. Accordingly, continuing to repeat the procedure of pressure by hand or other means by correcting the imbalance state appearing in spine, etc. constitutes a medical act that is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1942, Nov. 24, 1987; 93Do1352, Jul. 27, 1993; 94Do1325, Apr. 7, 1995). Accordingly, the court below's judgment on the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the medical act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the assertion that the act of substitute medical treatment shall not be punished, and the assertion of modification of precedents

Inasmuch as it is unnecessary to regulate all acts that cause physical harm to a person in the scope of medical practice, it may not be deemed that it would result in infringing the patient's right to life or health, etc., as it is an excessive regulation. However, since medical practice is likely to cause harm to human life or body or public health unless it is implemented with experience and function based on professional knowledge, it is regulated by a person who is not a doctor to prevent such harm (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2270, May 12, 1987). Thus, even if so-called "alternative medicine" does not have any function to solve human mental and physical harm, it goes beyond the level of merely relaxing pain, and thus, it is highly likely that such act may cause serious side effects that harm to human life or body, or public health, and it is not easy to permit it, it is not necessary to accept the so-called "the Act on Medical Practice or the Act on Medical Treatment, etc." under Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act, as it is still conducted under the name or the Act on public health.

4. As to the assertion of mistake in law

Even if a university or a social education institution provides education on the active law, or if the active law is a government-authorized sports item, and the defendant operates the above flag park after obtaining a certificate of a certified social sports leader in the active law field, training the active law, sports items, or granting a leader's qualification, etc. It is clear that it is aimed at guiding the general active law as a sports activity in which the defendant intends to promote a healthy body and mind through physical activities and make good use of leisure time, and it does not intend to allow any other medical practice prohibited by the law (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1325, Apr. 7, 195). Even if alternative medicine is conducted, the act likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health cannot be executed by a person who is not a doctor. Thus, even if the defendant believed that his act does not constitute a crime because it does not constitute a non-licensed medical practice, the ground of appeal on this part of the grounds for appeal is not justified.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)