logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.12 2015노3213
보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반(부정의료업자)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and a fine of 2,00,000 won.

except that this shall not apply.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the Framework Act on Qualifications, the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications, the Framework Act on Vocational Training, etc., the Defendant completed a training course for an emergency civil training at the Chungcheongnamnam Professional School for Human Resources Development, etc., the Defendant obtained a qualification certificate of alternative medicine (Grade 1) awarded by the Korea Federation of Alternative Medical Qualification Management (Grade 1). The Defendant has properly registered business, paid taxes, and operated a bedclothes clinic. As such, the Defendant constitutes “similar medical business operator” under Article 81 of the Medical Service Act, and thus, is not guilty or at least there is justifiable ground to believe that the Defendant’s act was not a crime by law.

B. Taking into account the various circumstances of unfair sentencing, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence (2 years of suspended sentence in February of one year and two,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The court below applied Article 5 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (a person who is not a doctor) to the facts constituting the crime of this case as a business prior to examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio. However, Article 5 subparagraph 3 (a person who is not a doctor) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes applies to the facts constituting the crime of this case against the defendant who provided oriental medical treatment without oriental medical doctor. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be maintained any more in this regard.

3. The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for appeal is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this point is examined.

An act of bedclothes under the current Medical Service Act falls under a license or an act of bedclothes without qualification as it constitutes a single-use medical act, and it constitutes an act of bedclothes under Article 27 of the Medical Service Act.

arrow