The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not conduct a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles without obtaining a license.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 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 are not asked, and the medical practice is engaged in the business of medical practice.

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 Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1896 delivered on January 10, 1989, and 97Do354 delivered on May 23, 1997, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant was engaged in beauty business for a long period of time, i.e., in the sales business, and the defendant was engaged in beauty business at the time of the crime of this case. The defendant was engaged in a non-licensed medical practice, i.e., "water mining" to F prior to the crime of this case. The defendant was engaged in the same non-licensed medical practice. The defendant purchased approximately KRW 100,000 on the Internet and received KRW 50,000 or KRW 80,000,000 from the Internet.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant’s erroneous recognition of and reflects on the allegation of unfair sentencing; (b) the payment of KRW 500,00 to E; and (c) the fact that there was no other criminal record other than

However, the crime of this case faces the defendant's face even though he is not a medical person.