The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Inasmuch as Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes and Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act prohibit unlicensed medical practice en bloc, this is unconstitutional in light of the need for alternative medicine, the clarity principle, the violation of the excessive prohibition principle, and the occurrence of infringement on fundamental rights, etc. Therefore, the lower court, which found a person guilty by applying the aforementioned provisions without the unconstitutionality of the applicable provisions of law, erred by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) In addition, medical practice under the medical law is not the act of treatment, but it is difficult for medical personnel to be able to do so, and it is difficult for medical doctors or herb doctors, and it is considered that medical personnel are limited to the act that is likely to deteriorate the patient

The defendant's practice is not a medical practice because it is difficult to be viewed as an act that may cause harm to public health and sanitation if any person gives an explanation to an expert, and if no medical person provides it.

3) The act of the Defendant, who had studied on the self-concriminy law for not less than 20 years, committed an act to the extent that he has affixed self-concept to the fingers of the recipient of the procedure constitutes a justifiable act suspected of having the necessity of punishment under social norms. 4) The use of self-concept itself is difficult to regard it as a medical device, and it should be viewed as a medical device to reach the extent of a self-concepted or processed for the purpose of treating, alleviating, or preventing diseases, such as relaxation of debris. Thus, the Defendant’s use of the self-concept cannot be regarded as a medical device

5 The defendant's seat is not a medical device, so it cannot be viewed as a medical advertisement because the defendant introduced the self-debrison law to the next car page on the Internet.

나. 양형부당 주장 대법원이 의료행위로 보지 아니한 ‘왕쑥찜기’ 내지 ‘수지침’에 비해서 이 사건...