The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have held that Article 82 (1) of the Medical Service Act, which allowed non-disabled persons to be recognized as only visually disabled persons, cannot be viewed as discrimination against the principle of proportionality compared to the visually disabled persons, and that it cannot be viewed as unconstitutional by excessively infringing the freedom of occupation of non-disabled persons.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1824, Mar. 25, 2010; Constitutional Court Decision 2008HunMa664, Jul. 29, 2010). The allegation in the grounds of appeal that Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act violates the Constitution and becomes null and void is inconsistent with the foregoing Constitutional Court Decision and the purport of the Supreme Court Decision, and thus, cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument that the defendant's act does not fall under the inside of the Medical Service Act or that the defendant did not recognize the illegality of the defendant is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant asserted that it was not a ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as an object of judgment ex officio.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, it is not illegal as alleged in the judgment below.

Meanwhile, in this case where a fine is sentenced, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.