All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant provided a somewhat exaggerated explanation to the victims about the red ginseng type, the Defendant had the effect of treating diseases, such as the old-indial type, cancer, high blood pressure, and hump, etc., and did not mean that the modified intrusion was a product granted a patent to the Republic of Korea and China. However, even though the modified intrusion was merely the application for patent, the Defendant did not deceiving the victims, the lower court convicted the victims of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Legal principles (the violation of the Medical Service Act No. 1-A of the judgment of the court of first instance) were committed by the defendant against J and N, but this does not constitute medical practice. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case on unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first and second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the judgment of the court of first and second. Each of the crimes against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first and second instance is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a limited term of punishment, under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.