A. The meaning of medical practice under Article 25 of the Medical Service Act

(b) Whether the repetition of a procedure to correct pains of patients, such as spine disks, constitutes a medical practice under the name of active driving movement;

A. The term "medical practice" refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease, and refers to the act of diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, surgery, etc., using experience and function based on professional knowledge in medical science. Here, the term "medical examination" refers to the act of diagnosis, diagnosis, medication, surgery, etc., and the term "medical examination" refers to the examination of the patient's appearance and the name of the patient by hearing and observing the patient's appearance, and has various methods of diagnosis, such as diagnosis, diagnosis, diagnosis, diagnosis, diagnosis, promotion,

B. In a case where the Defendant, without a doctor’s license or qualification, established an organization necessary for spine and pelvis correction by establishing a brate training center and installing equipment necessary for spine and pelvis correction, and carried out correction operations, such as taking inverte and pelvis, etc., with the patient’s paind with inverte and pelvise, under the pretext of active mechanism exercise, by hand, using brate, pelvise, etc., and continued to carry out correction operations by asking the patient for her marbry, and (a) judged the symptoms by asking the patient for her marth and pelvise, and pressured by water or other means, this constitutes a medical practice that is likely to cause harm to human life, body, or public health.

Article 25(1) and Article 66 subparag. 3 of the Medical Service Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do2135 Decided May 28, 1985, 86Do1678 Decided October 14, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Do2270 Decided May 12, 1987

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Han Han-hoon

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No1037 decided July 23, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term "medical practice" refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease, and refers to the act of diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, surgery, etc., using experience and function based on expertise in medical science. Since such act can cause harm to human life, body, or public health, the Medical Service Act regulates the medical practice of a person other than a doctor to prevent such act. Here, the term "medical examination" is to hear the patient's attitude and to observe and determine the patient's life and name, and to examine and determine the patient's beds and name by using other scientific methods, and it is deemed that the preparation, provision, or treatment of medicines suitable for the disease found by the above action belongs to the treatment act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do2135, May 28, 1985; 86Do1678, Oct. 14, 1986).

2. According to the legal determination by the court below, the defendant, even though he did not have a doctor's license or qualification, performed a correction of the patient's 10 vert disc, pelvise, pelvise, pelvise, pelvise, etc. from around April 5, 1983 to April 8, 1986, by forming three strings training courses at about 30 19 Madro-dong 426 Madro-dong 426 Madro-dong, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul, with an apparatus necessary for spine and pelvise correction, and let three criminal offenders, such as non-indicted 1, etc. install 100 vertebrate, pelviseb, pelvise, pelvise, and so on, on the part of patients suffering from her body disorder and pelvise surgery. The court below determined that the above procedure could have been conducted in a way of diagnosis and pelvise therapy to the patient's body condition.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that found the defendant's act guilty on the basis of Article 66 subparagraph 3 and Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act is just and there is no error of law like the theory of lawsuit.

This paper argues that the medical practice should not be employed, on the ground of its independent opinion.

3. Although a medical corporation, medical institution, or medical person is not allowed to advertise medical services, the first instance court which recognized the medical advertisement with the content that the defendant recovered from vertebrate correction in the daytime women’s magazines as stated in its reasoning and the lower court’s measures maintained are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to medical advertisement, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence. All arguments are groundless.

4. The appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)