The case holding that even if the defendant performed the procedure by taking over, rhing, bending, and unfolding the recovery of the patient who was found to have his/her ability to cure on his/her own hand, it cannot be said that there is no possibility that the treatment effect may cause harm to human life, body, or public health and hygiene, and therefore, it does not constitute medical practice under Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act.

Article 25(1) of the Medical Service Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 74Do114 Decided November 26, 1974 (Gong2137 Gong1975, 822) 77Do2191 Decided May 9, 1978 (Gong1978, 10836) 91Do340 Decided March 10, 192 (Gong192, 1341)

Defendant

The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) even if the defendant was not the intention, the defendant performed the medical treatment, such as taking care of one bridge, flading and using his her senthy, spine, etc., and receiving KRW 1,000,000 or KRW 10,000,00 at one time under the name of the medical treatment expenses, by receiving the request from 200 persons, such as Nonindicted Party 2, etc., who were the patients of hive disc, from 12:0 on July 10, 1993 to 14:0 on August 10, 1993.

2. Concept of medical practice;

The term "medical practice" under Article 25 (1) of the Medical Service Act means the experience and function based on medical expertise that prevent or treat a disease by performing diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do2270, May 12, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Do1942, Nov. 24, 1987); however, in light of the legislative intent of the Medical Service Act for the purpose of protecting and improving the health of the people (Article 1) and the purport of Article 25 of the same Act, which basically permits medical personnel to perform medical practice only, all acts for the purpose of treating the patient cannot be deemed as medical practice, and it is reasonable to interpret that the purpose of treating the patient is likely to cause harm to the life, body, or public health and sanitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do2270, Nov. 24, 1987);

3. Determination of facts charged

The defendant, from May 19, 193 to 15 days from the investigation agency, was put into a hot water, and he stated to the effect that, after he had had a permanent experience of stringing the left body, which is very hot, the treatment effect may occur if the defendant's hand meets the patient's return, he knows that the treatment effect may occur if the patient's hand meets the patient's return, and then asked the patient suffering from the search at a certain place where the open part is open. The defendant mainly used the method of putting the two floor hand over, locked or rhing each floor hand on the part, and the doctor again tried the open patient to take the part of the part, and tried to do so again, and the defendant did not use it as a method of pressure or rupture correction, etc., and the defendant has not been able to return it to the investigation agency by any other method, and there is no other method than the defendant's statement that the prosecutor has made any other method of treatment and resolution.

Therefore, even if the defendant conducted a procedure by using rhyming or bending and unfolding the patient's return, which was found as shown in the facts charged, on the ground that he was capable of treating the patient's own hand by undergoing a written examination, it cannot be viewed as belonging to the concept of the above medical practice, since it is not likely that such act may cause harm to the human life, body, or public health and sanitation, regardless of the treatment effect. Thus, it cannot be viewed as belonging to the concept of the above medical practice (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do340 delivered on March 10, 192). There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant conducted a medical practice.

Therefore, since the facts charged against the defendant in this case constitute a crime or a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it shall be sentenced to not guilty under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yu Won-won(Presiding Judge)