[1] The meaning of "act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, and the elements for establishing a legitimate act

[2] Requirements for a non-licensed medical practice to be recognized as a justifiable act that does not violate social norms

[3] The case holding that where a person who obtained a license or qualification for bedclothess in a foreign country but did not obtain a license or qualification to engage in an crypting activity in the Republic of Korea has conducted physical crypting operations beyond the level of mere number of guidelines, it cannot be deemed as a non-licensed medical practice not violating

[1] The "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Code refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and thus, it should be determined individually by considering the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the legal interests of the third protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act.

[2] Generally, it is difficult to view it as an act that does not violate social rules solely on the ground that it constitutes an act of invasion under Article 25 of the Medical Service Act because it constitutes an unlicensed medical practice (here-medical practice) under Article 25 of the same Act and thus, should be punished pursuant to Article 66 of the same Act. It is difficult to view it as an act that does not immediately violate social norms solely on the ground that the act of invasion is widely and easily seen and the risk of such an act is low. However, in individual cases, the illegality is dismissed only if it is recognized as an act that is acceptable in light of social ethics or social norms as a whole, comprehensively taking into account the degree of the risk of the act of invasion, general public’s view, the motive, purpose, method, frequency, knowledge level of the procedure, the person administering the procedure, the age, physical constitution, the condition of health, the side effect of the procedure, and the possibility of danger and injury.

[3] The case holding that where a person who obtained a license or qualification for bedclothess in a foreign country but did not obtain a license or qualification to engage in an crypting activity in the Republic of Korea has conducted physical crypting operations beyond the level of mere number of guidelines, it shall not be recognized as an unlicensed medical act that does not violate

[1] Article 20 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Article 25 (1) and Article 66 subparagraph 3 of the Medical Service Act / [3] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Article 25 (1) and Article 66 subparagraph 3 of the Medical Service Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2389 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1345) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do1764 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3159) Supreme Court Decision 93Do289 delivered on April 15, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1555), Supreme Court Decision 97Do2118 delivered on November 14, 199 (Gong197Ha, 3914), Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong199, 405) 203Do3099 delivered on March 29, 2014 (Gong1999, 205)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan (Korean National Assembly Line)

Daegu District Court Decision 2001No3888 delivered on August 30, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Examining the evidence admitted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the fact that the defendant prepared herb drugs after mixing them with yellow dust and dust, etc. can be acknowledged, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. This part of the ground of appeal is rejected.

2. As to the assertion that illegality is excluded because it does not go against social rules

"Acts which do not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms. Whether certain acts constitute legitimate acts which do not violate social rules should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate acts, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; reasonableness of the means or method of the act; balance between protected interests and infringed interests; fourth urgency; fifth degree of urgency; fifth degree of absence of other means or methods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 199). It is generally accepted as acts without a license or qualification as acts that constitute an act without permission under Article 25 of the Medical Service Act (non-medical acts). It is difficult to see that such act constitutes an act without permission under Article 66 of the same Act; and that it constitutes an individual act without permission under the overall social norms and thus, it is difficult to see that such act constitutes an act without permission.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, even though the defendant acquired a bedclothes qualification in a foreign country, such as Indonesia, it is acknowledged that he did not obtain a license or qualification to engage in bedling in the Republic of Korea, such defendant did not merely exceed the level of guidelines, but conducted a body bed on the part of the patient's boom, the patient's boom, the patient's boom, and the fact that the patient's breath is highly old and has a high possibility of causing side effects or risks caused by the crying act. Thus, such crying act by the defendant cannot be viewed as an act permissible in light of the overall legal order including the Medical Service Act, or social norms, and thus the illegality is not dismissed. The grounds for appeal on this part cannot be accepted.

3. 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)