If the patient's right is enhanced twice through the patient's request, the part of the violation of Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes;

If there is no evidence to view the Defendant as a business of unlicensed medical treatment only by livering it over twice with the patient suffering from a disease or mental disorder on the part of the patient, and there is no other evidence to view that the Defendant engaged in the business of medical treatment without a license, it may be a violation of Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act and Article 66 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes.

Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, Articles 25 (1) and 66 of the Medical Service Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-young

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1481 delivered on March 2, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The first instance judgment recognized the fact that the Defendant was not an oriental medical doctor but engaged in an oriental medical act by setting aside the intrusion on the part of the Nonindicted Party who is suffering from a disease and a mental disorder twice for profit-making purposes, and that the Defendant was subject to Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, and maintained the lower judgment.

2. The evidence is examined based on the records. After the defendant was found guilty of violation of the Medical Service Act, there is no evidence to view that he was engaged in an inception treatment as in this case at the request of the patient who found the case, and that he engaged in an inception treatment as well as an inception treatment business. Thus, the defendant's so-called "inception" cannot be punished by Article 66 of the Medical Service Act as a violation of Article 25 (1) of the same Act and Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. Therefore, the court below and the first instance court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on an inception treatment business and concluding facts without evidence. Accordingly, the appeal pointing this out is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and remanded with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)