All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the act of Defendant A, as indicated in the instant facts charged by Defendant A, engaged in the one-time and one-time brokerage procedure (hereinafter “the instant medical act”) by Defendant A, as the instant case, does not differ in terms of the flag color and treatment method belonging to the scope of duties of dental technicians, the risks of using products, and the treatment process; and (b) there is no possibility of causing harm to the life or body of the patient due to the Defendants’ acts in light of the characteristics of the products used by the Defendants; and (c) the instant medical act constitutes duties under which Defendant A, a private person of dental hygiene, under Article 3 of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act and Article 2(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, may direct and supervise Defendant B’s private person.

Article 1-2 subparag. 1 of the Medical Technicians Act provides that “medical technicians” means persons engaged in medical treatment or medical examination under the instruction of a doctor or dentist. As such, a private dental technician may engage in medical treatment under the instruction of a dentist.

Nevertheless, Article 2(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act unfairly limits the scope of duties of dental technicians to “the removal of fluences, such as fluorites, the removal of fluences, temporary charging, temporary attachment, the removal of attached objects, the removal of attached objects, the removal of blags, the installation and removal of blags for correction, and other duties related to the prevention and hygiene of dental and oral diseases.” Thus, the above Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act violates the authority of dental technicians based on Article 1-2(1) of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act.

Therefore, even though the Defendant A is able to perform the instant medical practice under the direction and supervision of Defendant B’s private person, the instant medical practice is under the direction and supervision of Defendant A’s private person in dental service.