(a) Whether it falls under the medical practice that a midwife can perform, such as quality therapy, pregnancy during or after the surgery, or treatment after the surgery (negative);

B. The meaning of "for profit" under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes and whether the person to whom profit belongs should correspond to the management entity or the person to whom profit or loss belongs (negative)

(c) The case holding that there is a profit-making purpose under the above "B" against a midwife who has performed a mass infection treatment or a pregnant abortion operation in collusion with the doctor who is the president of the women's clinic or clinic;

A. Even if a midwife is a medical person under Article 2 of the Medical Service Act, he/she can only engage in assistance in child delivery and health and nursing guidance for pregnant women, women in childbirth, women in child delivery, and newborn babies, and cannot provide quality care, abortion surgery, and treatment after the surgery, and this belongs to medical treatment only for doctors.

B. "Profit-making purpose" under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes refers to the purpose of obtaining wide economic benefits, and there is no need for the person to whom the benefit belongs to be consistent with the subject of management or the subject of reversion of profit or loss.

(c) The case holding that there is a profit-making purpose under Paragraph (b) above to a midwife who has performed infection treatment or abortion operation in collusion with the doctor who is the president of the woman in childbed and medical services.

(a)Article 5(a) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 2(2)4 and Article 25(1) of the Medical Service Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Do2835 delivered on January 15, 1980 (Gong1980,12565) (Gong12565 delivered on February 14, 1978). Supreme Court Decision 77Do3515 delivered on February 14, 1978 (Gong1978,10681) 79Do630 delivered on May 22, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 85Do448 delivered on February 11, 1986 (Gong1986,479)

A

Defendant

Attorneys B and 2 others

Seoul High Court Decision 91No3291 delivered on March 13, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's public defender and private defense counsel.

1. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, in collusion with Non-Indicted D, the president of C Council without a doctor's license, and in finding the fact that the defendant performed medical acts against 197 patients, such as quality treatment, pregnancy, surgery, etc. between December 15, 198 and April 24, 191.

2. Even if a midwife is a medical person under Article 2 of the Medical Service Act, he can only engage in assistance in child delivery and guidance for health and nursing of pregnant women, women in childbirth, women in child delivery, women in child delivery, and newborn babies, and does not provide quality care, abortion surgery, and treatment after the surgery, and this belongs to medical treatment that can only be performed by doctors.

Therefore, the Defendant, regardless of whether he performed the above medical treatment or surgery for the patient, is a doctor regardless of whether he performed the above medical treatment or surgery, and thus, the Defendant merely performed the part of the post as a midwife or the Defendant’s act does not constitute a so-called “large-scale”. The argument is without merit.

3. "Profit-making purpose" under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes refers to the purpose of acquiring wide economic benefits, and it does not necessarily require that the person to whom the profit accrued should be identical to the person to whom the profit accrued, or the person to whom the profit or loss accrued. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes since the defendant who conspired with the above D, as

4. Ultimately, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)