Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, from June 2007 to December 4, 2010, was a person who operated the Seocho-gu Seoul JA building 2 from around December 5, 2010, and from around December 5, 2010, “L-type surgery” on the 9th floor of the said KG building. In fact, even though the above member did not have a medical device necessary for the sex surgery, and did not have an intent or ability to perform the stem cell sex surgery against the patients, the Defendant attempted to receive the surgery cost from the patients who believed the stem cell sex surgery by advertising and consulting with the patient as if he/she performed the stem cell sex surgery, even though he/she did not have an intent or ability to do so.

On August 29, 2010, the Defendant revealed that, to the victim M who was found to perform a breast-maid surgery at the above Lane surgery and council members, the Defendant showed photographs and materials related to the breast-male type surgery of stem cells in the region where the stem cell transplantation surgery is simple and safe, and that, if the existing person transplants a stem cell area rather than the local transplant surgery and performs a breast-maid surgery, the growth rate of the transplant in the transplanted area is considerably higher than 70-80%, the satisfaction level of the patients is very high.

However, in fact, the defendant's operation against the victim was not a stem cell local transplant surgery, but a sex type of "self-local transplant" surgery.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim M, received 6 million won from the victim under the name of the stem cell type local chest type operation expenses in the same place.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 5 million from 16 victims under the same manner as indicated in the list of crimes in the same manner from March 24, 2010 to February 16, 201.

2. In spite of the fact that the Defendants were not medical personnel who violated the Medical Service Act, the Defendants A employed Defendant B who did not obtain a medical license around 2009 as an employee.