Whether the medical practice of birds and animals without a doctor's instruction constitutes the crime of this Article

Although it is clear that a medical practice has been performed without the doctor's instruction even though it is not in the absence of the doctor's intention, the medical fee cannot be said to have been deposited to the accounting officer of the above member and it does not constitute Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes.

Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes

Defendant

Attorney (National Election)-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 76No1701 delivered on October 20, 1977

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant recognized that he was engaged in medical practice five times as a business for profit-making purposes in the above member's medical practice although he was not a person working as a assistant of a house house, and comprehensively applied Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes and Article 25 of the Medical Service Act.

However, Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes provides that a person who is not a doctor for profit in violation of the provisions of Article 25 of the Medical Service Act shall be punished as a person engaged in a medical act for profit in violation of the provisions of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. Considering the employment evidence and records of the court below, the above medical act of the defendant in the judgment cannot be concluded as a violation of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, apart from the so-called fact that the defendant is treated as a violation of Article 25 of the Medical Service Act, if the defendant does not have any intention in the absence of intention, it is clear that the medical act of the above judgment was performed without the consent of the above member, but since the medical act was deposited into the above member's accounting department,

Therefore, the court below's decision as to the defendant's so-called violation of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures shall be deemed to have failed to examine the case or to have misunderstanding the legal principles as to the elements of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below's decision should not dismiss the defendant's reversal without examining other points, since it is reasonable to discuss the part of the decision.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)