The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal principle) is as follows: (a) the Medical Service Act separates the medical practice and dental practice (Article 2(2)); (b) provides that only the dental practice shall be permitted to a dentist (Article 27(1)); and (c) where a dentist performs any medical practice other

(Article 87(1)2). However, there is no specific provision that an act constitutes dental practice.

These provisions violate the principle of clarity as referred to in the Constitution.

The instant Stockholm procedure constitutes dental practice within the meaning of the Medical Service Act.

In addition, the defendant was aware that the dentist was permitted to administer the procedure, so the defendant did not have any intention to violate the Medical Service Act.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows.

The Defendant, as a dentist operating the “E dental hospital” on the third floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building, was prohibited from performing any medical practice other than the licensed one, provided on October 7, 201, the Defendant performed medical practice other than the licensed one by providing F with the eye and salute treatment using the Stockholm procedure to F, and by providing G with the salxine treatment using the Stockholm procedure.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether the “gymal therapy using the Stockholm procedure” constitutes a medical practice other than the dentist’s license, and thus, constitutes a violation of the Medical Service Act.

However, such treatment cannot be deemed as a medical practice other than that licensed to a dentist.

(Reference to a returned judgment). The facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.

3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the judgment is delivered as follows.

[A] The summary of the facts charged is set forth in Article 2-A.

It is as stated in the foregoing, and there is no proof of criminal facts as the reasons mentioned above.