The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of violation of the rules of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged

A. For the following reasons, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that determined that the Defendant was sufficiently specified to the extent that it could be distinguished from the facts charged in the instant case (excluding non-indicted part of the crime; hereinafter the same shall apply) from other facts charged.

(1) The facts charged in the instant case constitute a series of acts due to the realization of a single or continuous criminal intent and thus constitutes a single and continuous crime, which constitutes a single and continuous crime.

(2) In the case of a blanket crime, even though it is not specifically specified for each act forming part of the crime, if it is clearly stated the time and termination period of the total crime, method of the crime, the victim or the other party, the frequency of the crime, or the total amount of the damage, the crime is specified.

(3) In light of the nature of the instant crime, which is a single comprehensive crime, an overall crime, it is inevitable to indicate the overall crime. The prosecutor stated the name of each operation, the date and time of operation, the place, the patient, and the general method of crime as the facts charged and sufficiently specified the facts constituting the crime to the extent that it can be distinguishable from other facts.

B. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

2. As to the assertion of violation of the law by misapprehending the legal principles on unlicensed medical practice and by failing to comply with the law

A. After recognizing facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

(1) The act of inserting an ice lease pipe for a surgery, cement mixing for surgery, and injecting, etc. conducted by a medical person.