The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant cut down the cream above the pain of E, and it cannot be seen as the creaming of the cream above the pain of E, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant engaged mainly in the act of massage in light of the contents of the procedure, since he had walking for a considerable time in accordance with the Campaign Act.

Nevertheless, since the court below, without examining the entire purport of the witness E's testimony, concluded that the defendant's act was an act of massage and convicted, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. Article 88 subparag. 3 of the Medical Service Act provides that “An act to the extent, etc. to which a person takes charge of, takes charge of, plays down, or takes a body with hand or with a special device for the purpose of improving national health” shall be construed as “an act to the extent such as releasing a person’s body from him/her by taking a physical procedure on the human body according to various climatic methods, such as mathy, flacing, cutting, or pressure, etc., using electrical appliances, using electrical appliances, or using other climatic methods.”

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5531, May 14, 2009). In light of these legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the witness E: (a) in the court of the court below, the defendant was able to carry out the call for the military supply system at his hand; (b) the defendant was divided into the local pressure system; and (c) the defendant was able to carry out the west and west am. Even if the defendant was shot, she wanted to do so.” The defendant himself was heeped with the upper part, which is the part of the court below, in which he feel E, and the part of the upper part, which was admitted by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; and (d) the witness E was divided into the following circumstances; and (d) the defendant’s visit from the court of the court of the court below to the issue of whether he was subject to the visit by the investigator of the defendant and his telephone.