(a) The case holding that repeated procedures, such as pressure, etc., for patients suffering from active courts by correcting the state of physical inequality balanced condition, constitute medical practice;

(b) The case holding that there was no justifiable reason to believe that a person who acquired a certificate of qualification as a social sports leader of the active law category and operated a active court with the authorization of the authority does not constitute a crime of “A”

(a) The case holding that the determination of the symptoms by asking the patient from the patient with vertebrate disease, etc. found at the top of the signboard called Korean courts of balanced human life and continuing medical treatment, such as pressured by hand or other means, by correcting the imbalances appearing in spine, pelvis, bridge, etc., constitutes medical treatment that is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health;

B. The case holding that even if the active law is a government-authorized sports item, and the defendant establishes and operates a active court with the approval of the authority after obtaining the certificate of qualification of a certified social sports leader of the active law item, it is clear that the active law is recognized as a sports item or it is not for the purpose of guiding the general active law as a sports activity in order to promote a healthy body and mind and to make good use of leisure time through physical activities, and it is not for allowing non-licensed medical practice prohibited by the law, and it is not for the purpose of allowing it to be permitted. Thus, even if the defendant believed that his act of performing the procedure under Paragraph (a) does not constitute non-licensed medical practice, it cannot be said that there is a justifiable reason for believing such act.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do906 delivered on July 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 1150) 87Do1942 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong198, 202) 93Do1352 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2477)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong Ma-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 93No4434 delivered on April 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the evidence presented in the first instance judgment as cited by the court below in light of the records, the defendant was equipped with facilities and equipment such as bed, bridge, bed, and bed, patients' altitude level, etc. in the inside room of the same active court, in addition to the lecture room leading the active movement under the signboard called the Korean Court for balanced physical development. The defendant, as a result, mainly against those suffering from spine diseases, skin diseases, and so on, first of all, under the name of active law movement guidance, may lead to a disease requiring correction of physical imbalance after asking for the open part and the symptoms. While the defendant was placed on the bed or down down in the bed and down in the bed, and the fact that the defendant was found to have been found to have been in violation of the rules of evidence at least one hundred won and one hundred won and one hundred won and one hundred five won and five hundred won and one hundred won and five hundred won and five hundred won and five hundred won and five are not found to have been found to have been found to have been in violation of the rules of evidence.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the court below's determination of the symptoms by asking the appearance from the patients who found the above active court to the above active court shall be based on the diagnosis. Accordingly, continuing to repeat the procedure of pressure by hand and other methods by correcting the imbalance state appearing in spine, pelvis, bridge, etc., constitutes a medical act that is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1942, Nov. 24, 1987; 93Do1352, Jul. 27, 1993). Accordingly, the court below's determination that the defendant's medical act constitutes so-called medical act is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. On the third ground for appeal

Even if the active law is a government-authorized sports item, and the defendant establishes and operates the active court with the authorization of the authority after obtaining the certificate of qualification as a social sports leader of the active law item, it is clear that the sports item of the active law is for the guidance of the general active law as a sports activity aimed at cultivating a sound body and mind through physical activities and helping people enjoy leisure time, and it is not for the purpose of allowing the non-licensed medical practice prohibited by the law. Thus, even if the defendant believed that his act does not constitute a non-licensed medical practice, it cannot be said that there is a justifiable reason for believing such act, and therefore there is no reason for this.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)