beta
Text
Defendant
A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1 million, by a fine of KRW 500,000,000, by a fine of KRW 1.5 million, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. From May 2012 to June 21:10, 2012, Defendant A received 50,000 won per hour at the “F” business establishment located in Daejeon E, Seosung-gu, and carried out massage activities for profit by cutting down the cream, legs, shoulder, neck, etc. of customers, and taking the cream as knife and knife the knife and knife, etc.
2. Defendant B, without obtaining the recognition of a massage, performed a massage operation for profit by taking one hour and 30,000 won from May 2, 2012 to June 22:35, 2012 at the said business establishment, and putting customers’ trees, ear parts, etc. in good hands, and putting them in good hands, and putting them on a frighted meat.
3. Defendant C employed Defendant A, B, etc., who was an employee who was not accredited as a massage club at the said establishment from August 26, 2010 to June 22:35, 2012, and caused them to perform the act of massage for profit as set forth in each of the above paragraphs.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. Protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of each of the Defendants
1. The application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to each letter, self-written, and field photographic;
1. Relevant Articles 91, 88, and 82 (1) of the Medical Service Act concerning criminal facts and the Defendants who choose punishment: The provisions of Articles 91, 88, and 82 (1);
1. Defendants in custody in the workhouse: The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that the provisions of the Medical Service Act, which enables persons with visual disabilities to engage in massage business, are against the Constitution by infringing on the essential contents of the freedom of occupation of persons without visual disabilities. However, it is difficult to view the said provisions to be in violation of the Constitution, which goes beyond the limit of the legislation that restricts fundamental rights under the Constitution, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the freedom of occupation of persons without visual disabilities. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.
Supreme Court on December 22, 2011