Whether the facts charged in violation of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes and Article 25 of the Medical Service Act can be examined and determined as criminal facts of non-licensed medical acts in violation of Article 25 of the Medical Service Act without changing indictment (affirmative)

A prosecutor, without a doctor's or herb doctor's license, provided medical treatment to vertebrate patients who reported the newspaper advertisement for the purpose of treating the disease, such as dynasium and dynasium, etc. for business purposes, and among the charges charged for violating Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes and Article 25 of the Medical Service Act, the charges of non-licensed medical practice in violation of Article 25 of the Medical Service Act shall be included. In this case, the court may deliberate and decide on the criminal facts of the violation of the above Medical Service Act without the procedures

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do34 Delivered on February 28, 1984

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Ahn Young-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 84No333 delivered on May 3, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1:

In this case, the fact that the sentencing is excessive is that it is clear that it does not constitute a legitimate ground for objection under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, the theory of lawsuit on this point is groundless.

2. As to Defendant 2 and 3:

A. According to the records, among the facts charged in violation of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes and Article 25 of the Medical Service Act, among the facts charged in violation of Article 25 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, the court may deliberate and decide on the facts charged in violation of the above Medical Service Act without the procedure for modification of the indictment, and therefore, it does not interfere with the defendants' defense right. Thus, the court below did not err in the deliberation and decision as to the non-licensed medical act without the procedure for modification of the indictment.

B. The judgment of the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and concludes the Defendants' non-licensed medical practice. The review of the records reveals that the measures are acceptable, and this includes the purport of rejecting the grounds for appeal that there is no criminal intent of the Defendants. Therefore, there is no omission of judgment such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)