[1] Whether such an act constitutes a medical practice under Article 25(1) of the Medical Service Act (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of the purpose of profit-making under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, and whether a non-licensed medical practitioner should coincide with the person to whom economic benefits accrue or the management subject (negative

[1] The term "medical practice" refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease caused by diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, or surgical surgery with medical expertise based on experience and function, and other act that may cause harm to public health and sanitation if performed by a medical person. Since it is clear that an inception is an act that may cause harm to public health and hygiene, it is included in the medical practice of a herb doctor under the current Medical Service Act.

[2] The purpose of profit-making under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes is to obtain wide economic benefits, and there is no need for a person who conducts non-licensed medical practice to be consistent with the person to whom such economic benefits accrue or the person to whom such

[1] Article 25 of the Medical Service Act / [2] Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do1842 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3165), Supreme Court Decision 92Do2548 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 777), Supreme Court Decision 94Do78 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 738), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1297 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2744) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Do848 delivered on October 9, 192 (Gong192, 3181)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Sung-sung

Daegu District Court Decision 97No2861 delivered on July 16, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Medical practice refers to an act of preventing or treating a disease caused by diagnosis, examination, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment with medical expertise based on medical experience and skills, and other acts that may cause harm to public health and hygiene if performed by a medical person. Since it is clear that an inception is an act that may cause harm to public health and hygiene, depending on the case, it shall be deemed that it is included in medical practice of an oriental medical doctor under the current Medical Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do78, Dec. 27, 1994; 94Do1297, Jul. 30, 196). In addition, the purpose of profit-making under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes refers to the purpose of widely obtaining economic benefits, and therefore, it is not necessary for a person who conducts an inception without a license to necessarily coincide with the person to whom economic benefits accrue or the person to whom economic benefits accrue (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do284, Oct. 9, 192).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is acceptable that the court below maintained the first instance court's measure, which found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case, as it is for the reasons stated in its holding, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to medical practice and profit-making purpose under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)