The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the intention to establish a department of internal medicine in the Yansan-gu B of the Jeonju-si.

No medical person shall provide medical services without establishing a medical institution under this Act, and shall provide medical services within such medical institution, except in exceptional circumstances.

Nevertheless, from July 5, 2014 to October 31 of the same year, the Defendant provided medical services by way of performing surgery with the patient inside and outside of 58 persons from each week’s demand and Saturday on a regular basis from “F AD member,” which is a medical institution established by doctors E located on the nine floors of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

2. Determination

(a) Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “A medical person shall not engage in medical service unless a medical person establishes a medical term under this Act, and a person shall engage in medical service within the medical institution, except in any of the following cases:

Article 90 of the Medical Service Act provides that "A person who violates Article 33 (1) shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five million won."

"........"

Therefore, in order to fall under Article 90 and Article 33 (1) of the Medical Service Act, medical care should be provided at a place other than a medical institution established by the medical personnel.

B. Meanwhile, Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “no person, other than a medical person, shall perform any medical practice, and no medical person shall perform any medical practice other than those licensed,” and Article 3(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that “a medical institution” means a place where a medical person engages in medical assistance in child delivery (hereinafter “medical service”) for the public or multiple specific persons.

"........"

The Medical Service Act does not have a general definition of medical practice. The Supreme Court does not provide for the prevention or treatment of diseases caused by diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, or surgery on the basis of medical expertise and other medical personnel.