In the case of unlicensed medical practice, the same kind of offense shall be considered as an all-inclusive offense.

A. Since non-licensed medical practice is anticipated to be repeated due to the nature of the constituent elements of the crime, several repeated acts should be punished as one comprehensive crime.

B. Unlicensed medical acts constitute one of the same offenses as a whole until a trial is held upon the institution of a public prosecution, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, even if individual offenses not indicated in the written indictment for domestic affairs are considered to have been tried, and it shall not be prosecuted separately. If the judgment of conviction was rendered on July 20, 1965, it constitutes the final and conclusive judgment under subparagraph 1 of this Article, and it constitutes the case of non-licensed medical acts three times from July 2, 1965 to July 14, 1965.

Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon High Court Decision 66No17 decided May 27, 1966

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 25 of the Medical Service Act, a person, other than a medical doctor, is not entitled to "medical treatment", and Article 25 of the same Act provides that "medical services" are established within "medical services" under Chapter 4 of the same Act, and considering that the phrase "medical services" is used in the same article, the term "medical services" is prohibited as specified in item (b) of the same article, and the term "medical services" above means that those who are not a medical doctor with repeated intent are engaged in medical services, and therefore, non-licensed medical services in violation of the same article are expected to be repeated in light of the nature of the elements of the crime, and therefore repeated acts should be considered as a comprehensive crime.

Therefore, the facts charged against the defendant are examined as to this case, and according to the judgment below that the defendant performed a medical act without a doctor's license in accordance with Section 12 of July 2, 1965 and Section 14 of the same month. According to the court below's decision, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months (the same assistance number omitted) and the judgment became final and conclusive later, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months (the same assistance number omitted) as to this case's non-licensed medical act. (See a certified copy of the judgment attached to investigation records) according to the defendant's examination record (refer to the case number omitted) at the police of the defendant's police (refer to the copy of the judgment attached to investigation records), the defendant is undetained in the case (refer to the second sentence of Chapter 30 of the investigation record omitted). Thus, the defendant can be treated as a series of crimes, and thus, the defendant has no special intention to keep the defendant under detention at the same time as a series of crimes.

Therefore, once a public prosecution is instituted in relation to the same offense as non-licensed medical act in the original judgment, if a public prosecution is instituted, the same offense until the trial is held (if the intention of repetition is recognized accurately, if the intention of repetition is recognized accurately, the act will be committed not later than the judgment of the court which rendered the final trial, and even if the judgment is final and conclusive, even if the act is an individual offense not stated in the indictment for family affairs, it shall be deemed to have been tried all, and it shall not be prosecuted separately (if it is proved during the trial of the final case, it shall be added by the modified procedure of the indictment), and it shall be deemed that the judgment of acquittal of the defendant shall be justifiable, and on the premise that the non-licensed medical act is an independent offense, the argument that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to concurrent crimes in the original judgment is groundless.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu